Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

SENTENCE, LAHORE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will inquire into the case of an ex-minister in the Punjab who was sentenced by the High Court of that Province to imprisonment for an indefinite period for alleged contempt of court; whether such sentences are frequent under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act; and what is the usual term of imprisonment in such cases?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Lala Harkishen Lal was sentenced by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on 6th December, 1935, under the powers conferred by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, to two months simple imprisonment for disobeying an order of a subordinate Court. He was at the same time sentenced for disobeying an order of the High Court itself to remain in gaol until he apologised and paid into Court money taken by him contrary to the order of that Court. This further sentence was in that respect indefinite, but was passed by the High Court in exercise of its own inherent powers, and not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. The sentence was later converted by the High Court into a definite one expiring on 15th November last. Cases of the kind are infrequent and the sentences depend on the view taken by the Court in each instance.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the hon. Member give the exact authority under which the Court acted?

Mr. BUTLER: As I stated in my original answer, these powers are inherent in the constitution of the High Court.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any order was made by the High Court of Lahore when Lala Harkishen Lal was sentenced to imprisonment in respect of the class in which he should be placed in gaol; and whether this matter was left to the discretion of the gaol superintendent or whether subsequent instructions were given to the gaol superintendent?

Mr. BUTLER: On 1st November, 1935, Lala Harkishen Lal was sentenced to a term of one month's imprisonment and. the High Court Committal Order directed, his classification as a. Class A prisoner. When he was again imprisoned on 6th December, the gaol authorities placed him in classs A pending a direction from the High Court. This classification was subsequently confirmed by the chief Justice of the High Court and the local Government.

NORTH-WEST FRONTIER (SITUATION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for the latest information he has as to the conditions in India?

Mr. BUTLER: I presume that the hon. Member would wish me to make a further statement about the situation on the North-West Frontier. The tribes concerned in the attack on the troops on 25th-27th November have been informed that Government forces wilt march into the Khaisora valley, remaining there as long as is considered necessary. A road or roads will be constructed from Mirali into and within the Khaisora valley and fines in rifles and other penalties will be exacted from the guilty sections. Work on the road has already begun, under the protection of a column of troops.

Mr. DAY: Are the Royal Air Force co-operating?

Mr. BUTLER: Yes, Sir.

MR. SAJTAD ZAHEER.

Mr. MAXTON: asked the Under Secretary of State for India the reason, for the arrest of Mr. Sajjad Zaheer, Moslem Socialist leader in the United Provinces?

Mr. BUTLER: Orders sanctioning the prosecution of Mr. Sajjad Zaheer under


Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code were issued by the Government of the United Provinces on 17th November for a subversive speech delivered by him on 7th October. The orders were subsequently withdrawn by the local government on receipt of an undertaking from Mr. Zaheer's father that he would not offend again in the same way.

ANDAMANESE ABORIGINES.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any recent report upon the condition of the Andamanese aborigines, showing what steps are being taken to preserve the health of these tribes; and whether he can give an assurance that no firm of timber merchants will be given a concession for the timber of the Jarawa forest reserve, but that this reserve will be maintained solely for the aborigines?

Mr.BUTLER: The latest Administration Report stated that beyond the usual cases of colds and malaria the health of the Andamanese aborigines was good. Their preference for their own remedies rather than treatment in hospital continued, but arrangements were being made for them to be visited periodically in their camps by a sub-assistant surgeon.
I have no information regarding the Jarawa forest reserve.

IRAQ (ASSYRIANS AND JEWS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the position and safety of the Assyrians and Jews in Iraq under the new administration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): As the House is aware, the Iraqi Government have formally declared that it is their intention to ensure the welfare and protection of all minorities in Iraq, and such information as I have received shows that this declaration is being fully carried out.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Member consider the advisability of communicating instructions to our Air Force in Iraq t hat if these troubles recommence they are to take action in defence of the Assyrians and Jews?

Mr. EDEN: I think the hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. My information is that the present situation is satisfactory.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Yes, but if these troubles arise again, will our Air Force protect the people instead of leaving them unprotected?

SPAIN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the presence of Italian volunteers in Majorca and the consequences of their presence there for an indefinite period, he will arrange for the presence of similar British volunteers in Minorca and Port Mahon with the consent of the Spanish Government?

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the landing of 6,000 Germans at Cadiz?

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information from His Majesty's missions in Berlin and Madrid concerning the number of Germans who have proceeded from Germany to Spain to join General Franco's forces?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to the landing at Cadiz of 2,000 or more German nationals provided with equipment; and whether the members of the Non-intervention Committee propose to make representations to their respective Governments to prevent as far as is in their power the enlistment of their nationals in the forces engaged in the civil war in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: Information has been received that the number of Germans recently landed in Cadiz is about 5,000. This information has come direct from Cadiz and Seville. I have not received any reports from other sources regarding the numbers of these men. Information has also been received that there are large numbers of Italians serving with the forces in Majorca and large numbers of Russians and other foreigners fighting for the Government in Madrid. As I have previously indicated to the House,


His Majesty's Government strongly deprecate the participation of volunteers from other countries in the fighting in Spain. At my request, the Chairman of the Nonintervention Committee read out a statement to the sub-committee on Friday last, setting out His Majesty's Government's anxieties on this score and urging most strongly that the committee should take the matter at once into consideration and agree upon measures to put a stop to this practice. As a result the sub-committee drew up a general outline of proposals for submission to the main committee, and I understand that these proposals are to be put into final shape at a further meeting this afternoon.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Germans occupy the Canaries, and will he consider the question whether the occupation by this country of Port Mahon and Minorca in the interests of the Spanish Government is desirable, as long as the Italians remain in the other Balearic Islands?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information about the Canaries. My object is to put a stop to this on the part of everybody.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 5,000 Germans landed at Cadiz were volunteers?

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman information confirming the statement that these Germans are in fact members of the German Army?

Mr. EDEN: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Apart from the representations to the Non-Intervention Committee, have any special representations been made to the German, Italian and Russian Governments on this matter?

Mr. EDEN: No. In the first instance we have brought it before the Non-Intervention Committee. It will be for us to judge after to- day's proceedings what further action may be desirable or not.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the fact that this Government deprecates the use of these foreign troops in Spain is likely to have any influence whatever upon Berlin?

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether

he has any information as to the declaration by the Spanish rebel forces of a blockade of certain portions of the southern Spanish coast; and Whether His Majesty's Government recognise the validity of this operation?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information about the declaration of such a blockade. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. BELLENGER: Has not information of this nature been given to one of His Majesty's representatives in that area?

Mr. EDEN: I am not sure to what the hon. Member refers, but I can give him the assurance that we recognise no blockade.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what functions are being fulfilled by His Majesty's Ambassador to Spain, who is at Hendaye, in France; and whether he is maintaining communication with the Spanish Government?

Mr. EDEN: Amongst the various duties of His Majesty's Ambassador are those of advising and reporting to His Majesty's Government regarding the Spanish situation, of supervising the work of His Majesty's consular officers in Northern Spain, of maintaining contact with the insurgent authorities at Burgos on humanitarian questions and other matters of interest to His Majesty's Government, and of assisting the representative of the International Red Cross in his humanitarian activities. Communications between His Majesty's Government and the Government at Madrid pass through His Majesty's Embassy at Madrid or the Spanish Embassy in London.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as a more efficient method of maintaining contact with the Spanish Government?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, in all the circumstances. It is an arrangement which has been come to for the time being, and is the same as that practised by almost every other Government.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where the Spanish Government is at present situated?

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any reports have been renewed. from His Majesty's ships concerning the escorting of a German transport conveying German nationals to Cadiz by ships of the German Navy?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): No, Sir.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Has the Intelligence Department of the Admiralty no information on the matter?

Lord STANLEY: I can only repeat that we have received no information from any of His Majesty's ships.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Secretary of State for War, where the military attaché and the assistant military attaché to the British Embassy in Spain are now; whether instructions have been given to them to obtain all possible data with regard to present methods of warfare being carried on in Spain; and whether he has any information as to what instructions have been given to the military attachés of the other principal Powers in this connection?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The British military attache and assistant military attaché accredited to Spain are also accredited to France and Portugal, with their headquarters in Paris. An additional temporary assistant military attache has recently been appointed who is now at the British Embassy at Hendaye. Military attaches are, of course, instructed to furnish any information that may be of interest or value. As regards the third part of the question, I have no information.

GERMANY (BRITISH JOURNALIST).

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Karl Robson, the Berlin correspondent of the "Morning Post," has been summarily expelled from Germany; and what is the reason for this expulsion?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that Mr. Karl Robson has not technically been expelled from Germany. The German authorities state that his permit to reside in Germany as a correspondent for

three years has expired, and it has not been renewed. The reason given by the German authorities for the non-renewal of his permit is that his messages have, despite repeated protests, been unfriendly to Germany over a long period.

Mr. BELLENGER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make friendly representations to the German Government to avoid in future incidents of this nature?

Mr. EDEN: The House will appreciate that every Government has the right to expel foreign nationals, but the opportunity has been taken to remind the competent German authorities of the criticism that would arise if this right should be exercised, especially against foreign journalists without grave cause for complaint.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: How many British journalists have been expelled from Moscow in the past?

MEDITERRANEAN (JUGOSLAV INTERESTS).

Captain CAZALET: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in any arrangements to which His Majesty's Government may become a party regarding the situation in the Mediterranean, they will bear in mind the importance of having due regard to the legitimate interests of Jugoslavia?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have the opportunity of giving this assurance.

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received from His Majesty's missions in Berlin and Oslo any information concerning the date on which Herr von Ossietsky will proceed from Germany for Norway in order to receive the Nobel Peace Prize?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. NOEL-BAKER: Is it not plain that Herr von Ossietsky has been forbidden to leave Germany to receive the Nobel Prize, and does not this fact shed light on the departure of "volunteers" for Spain?

PALESTINE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the recent insurrection in Palestine had financial support from three foreign Governments; whether any of these Governments are members of the League of Nations; whether any explanations had been asked from, or protests made to, these Governments; if so, with what result; and whether he is prepared to make a statement on the subject?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The remaining parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the allegations made by Sir Ronald Storrs?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will call my attention to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PARIS EXHIBITION, 1937.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will arrange with the French Government that all goods purchased as a result of our exhibiting the British productions at the Paris Exhibition of 1937 will be admitted into France free of import duties so that the Anglo-French trade may be increased?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It would not, I think, be reasonable to approach the French Government with a request on the very wide basis suggested in the question; but discussions are taking place between the foreign Commissioners-General and the French Exhibition authorities with a view to some appropriate relaxation of quota restrictions during the period of the exhibition, and the French authorities have already announced that the import of foodstuffs intended for consumption within the exhibition will be unaffected by quota regulations.

Mr. SMITH: Seeing that there is so much in common between Britain and France, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of open-

ing negotiations with a view to carrying out the suggestion in the question?

Captain WALLACE: No, Sir; the hon. Member will see that if we carried out the suggestion in his question to its logical conclusion it would make it quite possible for anyone to evade the French import duties and regulations in a wholesale manner which we could not expect France to accept.

Mr. SMITH: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will arrange for the pottery exhibits that will be shown at the Paris Exhibition to be exhibited in other parts of the world where it may improve trade?

Captain WALLACE: I have received no request from representatives of the pottery industry that their exhibits at Paris should be shown by His Majesty's Government in other parts of the world, and as at present advised I am not disposed to favour the suggestion.

Mr. SMITH: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will arrange special facilities for the transport of exhibits to the Paris Exhibition of 1937?

Captain WALLACE: I understand that both the French and United Kingdom railways propose to make arrangements which will materially reduce the cost of transport for all exhibitors. In the case of exhibits selected for display in the United Kingdom Government Pavilion by the Council of Art and Industry, the Department of Overseas Trade has undertaken to bear the total cost of transport between London and Paris.

FOREIGN STICKS.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any report has yet been received from the Import Duties Advisory Committee relative to an alteration in the duty against foreign sticks imported into this country?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I would refer my hon. Friend to the latter part of the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) on 19th December, 1935, of which I am sending him a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

FOOTBALL POOLS (LETTERS).

Mr. C. WILSON: asked the Postmaster-General whether any, and, if so, what alterations have been made in Post Office regulations in Liverpool and elsewhere in order to cope with the letters sent by or to the promoters of football pools?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): Letters sent by or to the promoters of football pools are dealt with under the usual regulations for the acceptance, despatch, and delivery of heavy bulk postings. Any authorised modifications in those regulations in connection with the pools traffic have been made for the convenience of the Post Office, and are such as would be made in the case of similar postings by any commercial firm.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. and gallant Member say whether any special arrangements have been made to deal with some of these football pools?

Major TRYON: Not without notice.

ELECTION COMMUNICATIONS (ERDINGTON).

Mr. C. WILSON: asked the Postmaster-General the nature of and the necessity for the communication which was addressed by the postal authorities to the candidates or their agents during the recent Erdington by-election as to the days upon which election communications should be posted?

Major TRYON: The date for polling was Tuesday, 20th October. Under the regulations relating to the posting of election communications the latest date for posting was Friday the 16th, but in order to avoid any risk that the communications would not reach the voters in time, the election agents were asked to hand them in early in the week; and I am glad to say that they were able to agree to this suggestion.

Mr. WILSON: Is that a risk which ordinarily takes place at a by-election?

Major TRYON: At every by-election the Post Office does its best to see that the arrangements made are for the convenience of the public.

Wing-Commander WRIGHT: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that neither I nor my agent received any communication from the Post Office?

ADVERTISEMENTS.

Mr. CARY: asked the Postmaster-General what annual revenue is derived, directly or through a contractor, for advertisements in books of stamps; what portion of the revenue so obtained is derived from advertisements of medicines and appliances for the cure or relief of rheumatism and arthritis and of deafness, respectively; and whether, in view of paragraph 57 (2) of the report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines in 1914 recommending the prohibition of advertisements of cures for deafness, among other diseases, it is his practice to consult the Minister of Health respecting such advertisements?

Major TRYON: The figure asked for in the first part of the question is £16,493, and those asked for in the second half are £838 and £3,074. The answer to the third part is in the negative, but the Minister of Health is aware of the general policy of the Post Office.

TELEPHONE ENGINEERS (OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General the number of hours of overtime worked by the telephone engineers during the past 12 months in each of the following districts: Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and Bristol; and the number of engineers affected in each district?

Major TRYON: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The number of hours overtime for the year ended 20th November, 1936, and the average number of engineering workmen employed during the year in the districts concerned are as follow:



Hours.
Workmen.


Edinburgh
100,100
575


Manchester
178,620
1,265


Birmingham
319,660
1,187


Leeds
106,300
512


Bristol
99,359
560

During the year in question there was an increase of nearly 1,000 in the number


of engineering workmen employed in the districts concerned. No statistics are available to show how many of the workmen actually performed overtime.

TELEPHONE CALLS (OCEAN LINERS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General the number of ships-to-shore ocean telephone messages that have passed through the British wireless telephone stations for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; and what further early reductions are contemplated in ships-to-shore ocean and/or transatlantic telephone services?

Major TRYON: Approximately 2,100 telephone calls with ocean liners were dealt with during the last 12 months. Reductions in rates were made in the Transatlantic telephone service on 1st July last and in the ship telephone service on 1st August. I am not in a position to announce any further reductions at the present time.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the service is satisfactory?

Major TRYON: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: On a point of Order. May I ask whether questions of this quality, the information relating to which can be obtained by direct questions to the Postmaster-General should be on the Order Paper and wasting the time of the House?

Ex-SERVICE MEN.

Sir NICHOLAS G RATTANDOYLE: asked the Postmaster-General whether any proportion of vacancies in the postal service is reserved for ex-service men?

Major TRYON: Half of the vacancies for postmen and porters are reserved for ex-service men.

TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION (ORKNEYS AND SHETLANDS).

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the Postmaster-General what progress has been made in the direction of providing telephonic communication between Shetland and the mainland and between the various islands and the mainland of Shetland and Orkney, respectively?

Major TRYON: The proposals for the provision of trunk telephone service between Shetland and the mainland of Great Britain and between the various islands and the mainland of Shetland and Orkney involve a large amount of detailed investigation. The matter is being actively pursued and this winter further experiments are to be made on the spot in order to determine the suitability at all times of the year of ultra-short-wave wireless telephony for the purpose of extending telephone service to these islands.

FOULA (WIRELESS APPARATUS).

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the offer made by a certain film company to sell to the Post Office the wireless apparatus with which they maintained contact with the outer world during their residence in the island of Foula last summer; and what decision has been arrived at?

Major TRYON: The apparatus to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was dismantled some time ago. It was unsuitable for regular communication between Foula and the mainland. Considerable progress has already been made in connection with the setting up of a service to Foula but it will be some little time yet before it becomes available. Arrangements are already in train however to give a temporary service which, I hope, will be in operation within the next few weeks.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: asked the Postmaster General whether the British Broadcasting Corporation, has now set up staff associations among its employés?

Major TRYON: I am informed by the Corporation that no such association has yet been set up, but that active inquiries are in progress, and that it is hoped before long to formulate a scheme for consideration.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In his last speech five weeks ago the Postmaster-General said that the Corporation were dealing with this matter; and will he therefore suggest that they should expedite their decision?

Major TRYON: I am sure that the British Broadcasting Corporation will


pay attention to the representations of the right hon. Gentleman. The issue is a simple one. The Ullswater Committee recommended that facilities should be provided for any representative organisation, whether a single staff association or smaller bodies which the Corporation's employés may wish to set up, and that was agreed to by the Government, and has been accepted by the Corporation.

Mr. STEPHEN: In view of the general mismanagement of the British Broadcasting Corporation, will the Postmaster-General take steps to make it a proper Government Department?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

REFRESHMENT ROOMS AND LAVATORIES.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether consideration has been given to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Refreshment Rooms and Lavatories, which reported in July last; and when these necessary improvements will be put in hand?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): Yes, Sir: but my noble Friend is not at present in a position to state when the works of improvement will be carried out.

VENTILATION.

Mrs. TATE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any new system of ventilating the Chamber and the House generally is being experimented with; and whether he will endeavour to remedy the discomfort and danger to health due to the draughts caused by the present system?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): The subject is dealt with fully in a Note circulated by my Noble Friend last Session. I will send the hon. Lady a copy.

ROYAL PARKS (GIFTS).

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Com-

missioner of Works, what gifts have been made to the Royal Parks during the past year?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of gifts to the Royal Parks during the past year. It always gives my Noble Friend great pleasure to receive such gifts, and he is very grateful for this opportunity of expressing his thanks to the donors.

Following is the list:

Messrs. R. H. Bath, Limited.—Daffodil bulbs for the grounds of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

Mr. L. H. Bentall, J.P.—Gift of money for the provision of a new gate and two grilles in the wall of Hampton Court Park.

British Nursery Industry (through the Flowers, Plants and Vegetable Publicity Committee).—Collection of herbaceous plants for Queen Mary's Gardens, Regent's Park.

Mr. S. Burgess.—Gift of roses.

Mr. A. Ezra.—Various waterfowl.

Mr. Sigismund Goetze.—Pedestal and pool for "Boy with Frog" fountain; rockery stone; and collection of iris and eremuri for Queen Mary's Gardens.

Mr. A. J. Healey.—Gift of money for the improvement of the entrance to Regent's Park on the Albert Road opposite to St. Mark's Square.

Mr. J. C. Laidlay.—Various waterfowl.

Lord Revelstoke.—Various waterfowl.

Sir A. M. Samuel,M.P.—Seventeenth century lead water tank placed in the Orangery Garden, Kensington Gardens.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE (GARDENERS).

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Minister of Labour the earliest date that an unemployed gardener can obtain unemployment insurance benefit; and whether gardeners employed on long-term hirings will be required to pay the full weekly contributions?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): A gardener not already insured against unemployment but becoming insurable under the terms of the draft order relating to private


gardeners now awaiting approval in another place, might qualify for the receipt of benefit if unemployed on and after 15th June, 1937. If and when the draft order is approved the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act relating to long-term hirings will apply to private gardeners as to other workers included under the scheme of unemployment insurance for agriculture.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: In view of the fact that gardeners are now to be included in unemployment insurance, is it intended to withdraw the licences which are paid on their behalf?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think that question should be directed to another Department.

NEEDS TEST.

Mr. WHITELEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Government have now considered the evidence submitted by the hunger marchers; and whether it is the intention to abolish the means test or to bring about some revision of same?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) on 19th November last.

Mr. WHITELEY: Arising out of that reply, have the Government given any consideration to the definite evidence put before the Minister upstairs, and have they come to any decision?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member will recollect that my right hon. Friend promised to look into any individual cases that might be submitted to him. With regard to a decision, I think he will find the answer to that contained in the last part of the answer to which I have referred.

Mr. WHITELEY: May I call the attention of the Minister to the fact that none of his replies to these questions have dealt with the question whether the Government have considered the means test itself, and whether they have decided to allow it to remain or to make any revision in it?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I think the hon. Member will find that the last part of the answer makes that clear. There has been no change in the Government's attitude since then.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand from that answer that the evidence of national indignation has had no effect on the Government's mind in the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's definition of indignation in this case.

Mr. WHITELEY: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

SUEZ CANAL (TONNAGE DUES).

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the sterling equivalent of Suez Canal dues per Suez Canal ton for the years 1934 and 1935 and for the 11 months of 1936; and whether he has received any representations from shipowners or shippers or from the Dominions, Colonies, or Mandated Territories of recent years with respect to the continued high level of these dues;
(2) whether he has been in communication with any foreign Power as to the present high level of Suez Canal dues; and whether the British Government representatives on the board have received any fresh instructions to press for a reduction of dues in the interest of British commerce with the East?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The average sterling equivalents of the Suez Canal tonnage dues from 1st January, 1934, till 7th July, 1935, were 7s. 6d. per Suez Canal ton for loaded vessels, and 3s. 9d. for vessels in ballast. From 8th July, 1935, the rates have been fixed in sterling. They were 7s. 6d. per ton for loaded vessels and 3s. 9d. for vessels in ballast until 30th June, 1936, and were reduced as from 1st July, 1936, to 7s. and 3s. 6d. respectively. The rates of tonnage dues are fixed by the Suez Canal Company. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, it is well recognised that the shipping community wish to see the dues reduced to as low a level as practicable, and the Government directors are fully aware of this desire. The company have had under consideration the possibility of a further reduction of dues in the near future, and


my right hon. Friend is informed that, following a meeting of the board of the company to-day, the dues will be reduced as from 1st April, 1937, to 6s. for loaded vessels and 3s. for vessels in ballast. The answer to the first part of Question No. 40 is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MUNICIPAL HOUSING SCHEMES (OPERATIVES).

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that representatives of the workmen in the building trades in Scotland have agreed during the present emergency to work overtime on municipal housing contracts; that the Department of Health has concurred, but that representatives of the employers, while agreeing to overtime on other classes of building, have declined to agree to overtime on the construction of working-class houses in municipal schemes; and what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Wedderburn): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In recent months the Department of Health have approved overtime proposals by three local authorities. I am not aware that any general decision against the working of overtime on housing schemes has been reached by the National Employers' Associations. I understand, however, that difficulties have occurred in certain districts, mainly on account of protests by neighbouring local authorities and by other contractors. I am informed that overtime in the building trade is worked mainly to meet emergencies on small jobs. On big jobs urgent work is commonly carried out by shifts.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Arising out of that answer, is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is precisely in those districts where there is the greatest need for house-building that these difficulties have been put in the way of the municipalities?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I think that overtime is only useful for a short-term emergency, and that a long-term emergency such as we have here can hardly be met by a general increase in working hours.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? I Is it not the case that difficulties have been placed in the way of municipalities only in areas where the need for house-building is greatest?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I do not think so. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, overtime is governed by the rules of the industry, which are regulated by local joint committees on which there are representatives of both workers and employers.

Mr. HICKS: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for recognising the fact that there are local joint committees, is he aware that the building trade operatives place an unlimited period of overtime on housing schemes at the disposal of the employers and the local authorities, and that whereas the employers have not generally and publicly declared against overtime, they have on each of the local committees voted against overtime being worked on housing schemes?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I think that is so, and personally I should be quite glad if some overtime were agreed upon, but I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that in a long-term emergency a general increase of working hours would necessarily be the best solution, particularly in view of the present amount of unemployment in Scotland.

Mr. STEPHEN: Would not the municipalities be able to get bricklayers if they paid the same or better rates and gave as good conditions as are provided by private employers?

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any proposals have been made to him by the municipal authorities in Scotland for a limitation or rationing of their housing programmes on the ground that there is a shortage of skilled workmen available for the building of houses in their areas; is he aware that during September on a Stirling housing scheme of 212 houses there were only engaged seven bricklayers and three apprentices, and on the Househillwood scheme, Glasgow, for 836 houses there were only engaged 15 bricklayers and 15 apprentices; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the building of houses for the working


classes shall receive an adequate proportion of the available supply of skilled labour?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: Three local authorities have submitted proposals that invitations to tender for further houses on their programmes should be delayed in view of the slow progress being made on their schemes now in process of erection. My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts stated in the second part of the question, and, as regards the last part, he is in communication with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Could the hon. Gentleman give some indication as to what steps the Government are going to take to deal with this most urgent and most important matter?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: No, Sir, not now; but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend does not intend to acquiesce in the indefinite delay of these schemes by a shortage of labour.

Mr. STEPHEN: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will take no steps to put a limit on the wages that are earned by the workers in this industry?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: I do not think that question has arisen anywhere.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Are the Government prepared to prevent firms such as Marks and Spencer building new places and dragging men away from other places for temporary jobs for a few days? Are they to be protected?

HOUSING (KILSYTH).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses provided in Kilsyth last year and this year, respectively, the number of houses in this town with six or more persons living in a single apartment, and the average rental of such houses?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: The number of houses completed in Kilsyth in 1935 was 104, and the number completed this year, to 30th November, was 84. The number of single-apartment houses containing six or more persons per house is 22, and the average rental of such houses is £7 3s. 5d. per annum.

TUBERCULOSIS (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons certified as suffering from tuberculosis in Dennistoun, Whitevale and Mile End wards of the Camlachie Parliamentary Division last year and the corresponding figures for Cathcart and Partick wards?

Mr. WEDDERBURN: The records of the Glasgow Public Health Department show that in the wards in question the numbers of cases of tuberculosis (pulmonary and non-pulmonary) notified in 1935 were as follow:

Ward.
Number of Notifications.


Mile End
56


Whitevale
57


Dennistoun
52


Partick East
48


Partick West
37


Cathcart 
31

CORONATION CEREMONY.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an early opportunity for discussing the Notice of Motion standing on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Oath of Allegiance which they have already taken to King Edward VIII is unaffected by any form of Coronation ceremony or by the presence thereat or absence therefrom of any dignitary or personage whatsoever; nor will they substitute any other for the King of England.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Arising out of the answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can at least give us an assurance that the fatal and final step of abdication or the acceptance of abdication

Mr. SPEAKER: Order.

Mr. THURTLE: rose—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Alfred Knox.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: On a point of Order. May I ask, Sir, on what ground do you forbid me to put this supplementary question as is usual?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman asked a question, and he received an answer which was a very definite answer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask to have that answer explained? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is it not in accordance with the ordinary custom of this House that any answer made by a Minister may be explained and amplified if desired? I think I am perfectly justified in asking that question.

Mr. SPEAKER: The answer given to the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to me to call for any amplification.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask the Prime Minister, arising out of his reply, whether it is not his intention to give the House some opportunity of discussing the matters referred to in this Motion before any irrevocable decision is taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I was asked whether I would give time to discuss this particular Motion. My answer is that I cannot see my way to do it.

DEAF-AND-DUMB JUVENILES (AFTER-CAREERS).

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the large percentage of boys and girls who leave deaf-and-dumb schools without any prospect of work to go to and remain unemployed for considerable periods; and will he consider the appointment of a departmental committee, with powers to inquire into the whole position, with a view to advising the best methods of finding employment for these individuals?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Shakespeare): Figures obtained from the deaf schols for the period from 1923 to 1929 inclusive and published in Dr. Eichholz's report "A study of the Deaf in England and Wales" showed that the schools had information as to the after-careers of 93 per cent. of the children who had left school during that period, and that of these 75 per cent. were employed and 81 per cent. were living in satisfactory circumstances. These percentages may have fallen to some extent during the period of economic depression since 1929, but on the information before me,

I am unable to agree that the percentage of unemployment among the deaf is high having regard to the disability from which they suffer, and I am not satisfied as to the need for a Departmental Committee to inquire into the position.

Mr. DAY: What is the percentage at the present time?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that these young people suffer under a serious handicap; and does he not think that some departmental body ought to deal with deaf and dumb boys and girls instead of leaving them entirely in the hands of voluntary organisations?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are watching the situation very closely, but, as I have explained, there is no point at present in setting up a committee such as has been suggested.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman's answer mean that 19 per cent. of those leaving school have not found employment?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think if the hon. Gentleman reads my answer again he will see that that is not the effect of it.

TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (EMPLOYMENT).

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the appointment of a Royal Commission to decide what further places in Government employment can be reserved for ex-service men?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cardiff (Captain Evans) on 19th November, of which I am sending him a copy. The question whether a still larger number of posts in the Government service can be reserved to ex-members of the Regular Forces is constantly under review and is being specially considered at the present time. I do not think that the appointment of a Royal Commission would facilitate the detailed inquiries which are inevitable in connection with the consideration of a


matter of this kind, but my hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that if additional machinery for the purpose in view were thought to be advisable any necessary steps would be taken.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

TROOPS (ACCOMMODATION).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the last year in the replacement of out-of-date housing accommodation for troops by satisfactory quarters; and whether any units are still housed in corrugated-iron hutments erected at the time of the Boer war?

Mr. COOPER: Expenditure during the current financial year on the modernising of barracks and replacement of huts will reach approximately the sum of £750,000, and this is only the first instalment of a scheme which will involve considerably larger expenditure in 1937. There are still in existence a few huts dating from the time of the Boer war, but every effort is being made to replace them by modern accommodation with the least possible delay.

Sir A. WILSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ether Committee's recommendations, made 16 years ago, have for the most part been ignored?

RECRUITING.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he proposes to take to improve recruiting for the Regular Army?

Mr. COOPER: A great many steps have already been taken with this object in view and many more are now under consideration. My hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to give a complete list of these in reply to a question.

Sir A. KNOX: Has the right hon. Gentleman any confidence that he will be able to goad the Cabinet into taking action in time?

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not take the House into his confidence on this question of recruiting?

Mr. COOPER: I really do not know what the hon. Member means by taking the House into my confidence at Question Time. I have answered the question, and I have nothing to add.

Mr. SHINWELL: As the right hon. Gentleman has made certain veiled references to the subject of further steps that may be required to be undertaken, will he not take the House into his confidence and tell us exactly what he has in mind?

Mr. COOPER: I have not made any veiled references. I have said that certain proposals. I have said that certain proposals to encourage men to join the Army are now under consideration, and I hope to be able to give a full statement with regard to them in the near future.

LICENSING PROSECUTION, ROCHESTER.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the case of a registered club which was recently fined at Rochester for selling drink to children whose respective ages were 10, 13, and 15 years, the prosecution could only be instituted as one for the illegal sale of liquor for consumption off the premises; and whether he will take into account, in the preparation of the clubs legislation promised by him, the Royal Commission's unanimous recommendation that no person under 18 should be supplied with liquor in clubs?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have made inquiry, and I find that the facts of this case are as stated by the hon. Member, and that proceedings were successfully taken for breach of the provisions of the Licensing Act relating to the supply of liquor from a club for off-consumption. It would not appear that the existing law is inadequate to deal with offences such as were committed in the present case, but the recommendation of the Royal Commission to which the hon. Member refers, together with the other recommendations of that Commission relating to clubs, will be duly considered in connection with the proposed clubs legislation.

Mr. MESSER: While it may be admitted that the law as it stands is adequate to deal with the offence after it has been commited, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the suggestion in the question would prevent the offence being committed?

TAX OFFICE, BOSTON (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. HASLAM: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for His Majesty's inspector of taxes and staff at High Street, Boston, Lincolnshire, is seriously overcrowded; whether steps are being taken to obtain alternative accommodation; and what is the present position?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend is aware that the accommodation at present provided for the inspector of taxes at Boston, Lincolnshire, is not satisfactory, and consideration is being given to the question of providing improved accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PARKING REGULATIONS, WEST END OF LONDON.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the parking regulations for cars in St. James's Square and other parts of the West End forbid owners to leave their cars in the parking places for more than two hours continuously; and whether, as it is impossible for owners to comply with this provision when leaving their cars to attend theatres in the evenings, he will arrange to relax these restrictions so far as the evening hours are concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I am sure that owners of motor vehicles will realise that it is to the public advantage that they should garage their cars off the public highway, particularly if they wish to leave them for a lengthy period.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (ALCOHOL).

Mr. MESSER: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of recent experiments and investigations at the National Institute of Industrial Psychology, the conclusions of which have still further enforced the findings of the British Medical Association on the relation of small doses of alcohol and unreliability in motor driving; and whether

he will take steps, in view of the toll of road accidents, to bring this matter prominently once more to the attention of the motoring public?

Captain HUDSON: Yes, Sir, the institute furnished my right hon. Friend with a copy of the report of a preliminary study of the relation of alcohol to road accidents, based upon a series of experiments, the results of which are stated to indicate that even moderate quantities of alcohol tend to make A, driver accelerate unconsciously and maintain a less steady course. The report received considerable notice in the Press, and I do not doubt that the hon. Member's question will serve to draw further attention to it.

Mr. MESSER: Does that mean that it is generally admitted that spirits are better in the carburettor than in the stomach?

MOTOR DRIVERS (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there is considerable violation of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by the Act of 1933, regarding the hours of work any driver of certain vehicles may be on duty in any one day; and will he take steps to inform the public and employers and drivers, in particular, of the definite meaning of the Act regarding hours of work in the interest of public safety on the roads?

Captain HUDSON: During the past two years many convictions have been obtained in proceedings instituted by the police and the licensing authorities, and the resultant publicity should have helped to impress upon all concerned the requirements of the law and the importance of observing provisions directed by Parliament in the interests of public safety. Meanwhile, I am sending the hon. Member prints of two pamphlets explaining the law on this subject, which are issued free of charge by the licensing authorities.

TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS (DECISIONS).

Mr. REMER: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the dissatisfaction on the part of the public and the motor transport workers with the effect of the Road and Rail Act on road transport, he will introduce a short


amending Bill to give the right of appeal from the decisions of the Traffic Commissioners to the Ministry instead of to an independent tribunal?

Captain HUDSON: My right hon. Friend sees no sufficient justification for asking Parliament to reverse the decision taken only three years ago.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that as the law is at present Members of Parliament are not able to bring their grievances either before the Minister or before this House, and will he see if these are not some means whereby they can do so?

Captain HUDSON: I do not think I can add to the answer I have given.

Mr. REMER: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the railway companies are opposing these applications by every means they can, and are causing great dissatisfaction amongst motor transport workers?

BACON MARKETING.

Sir HUGH SEELY: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he proposes taking to provide against the shortage of bacon which is threatened as a result of the Bacon Marketing Board's failure to secure the minimum number of contracts for pigs under the 1937 contracts?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As the hon. Member will be aware, the period within which contracts may be made has been extended until 14th December. In any case no question of a shortage of bacon arises, since total supplies can be maintained at the existing level by adjustment of imports.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May we take it that the Minister will proceed to adjust the imports?

Mr. MORRISON: That question is at present entirely hypothetical.

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION.

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he has anything to add to the statement which he made on Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir. I am glad to have the occasion of making a further statement on the position.
In considering this whole matter it has always been, and remains, the earnest desire of the Government to afford to His Majesty the fullest opportunity of weighing a decision which involves so directly his own future happiness and the interests of all his subjects.
At the same time they cannot but be aware that any considerable prolongation of the present state of suspense and uncertainty would involve risk of the gravest injury to National and Imperial interests and indeed no one is more insistent upon this aspect of the situation than His Majesty.
In view of certain statements which have been made about the relations between the Government and the King, I should add that, with the exception of the question of morganatic marriage, no advice has been tendered by the Government to His Majesty with whom all my conversations have been strictly personal and informal. These matters were not raised first by the Government but by His Majesty himself in conversation with me some weeks ago when he first informed me of his intention to marry Mrs. Simpson whenever she should be free. The subject has, therefore, been for some time in the King's mind and as soon as His Majesty has arrived at a conclusion as to the course he desires to take he will no doubt communicate it to his Governments in this country and the Dominions. It will then be for those Governments to decide what advice, if any, they would feel it their duty to tender to him in the light of his conclusion.
I cannot conclude this statement without expressing—what the whole House feels—our deep and respectful sympathy with His Majesty at this time.

Mr. ATTLEE: Everyone will agree with the sympathy expressed by the Prime Minister in the last words of his statement. I am assuming from his statement that His Majesty has not yet come to a conclusion on the advice of the Ministry on the subject of the morganatic marriage proposal. If this is so, it is difficult to press the right hon. Gentleman for further information at the present time, but I would like to ask him to bear in mind,


as I am sure he does, that the House and the country are deeply anxious to receive the fullest information as soon as possible, as without that it is quite impossible to have any proper discussion on these issues that may be raised.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the point that he has put. I was not aware that he was going to put it, and I am grateful to him, because I agree with every word of it, and I shall be only too glad at a suitable moment to give the House the whole of the information which I am able to give, and while I am always willing to answer, as I think the House knows, supplementary questions, I do think the whole House will agree with me that at this moment, with a situation that is so grave and anxious, and while the King is considering this matter and has not yet made up his mind, I should feel great difficulty in offering information in answer to supplementary questions, especially considering that the answers I should have to give would have to be improvised.

Mr. CHURCHILL: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he could give us an assurance that no irrevocable step—[Hoist. MEMBERS: "No."]—that no irrevocable step will be taken before the House has received a full statement, not only upon the personal but upon the constitutional issues involved? May I ask him to bear in mind that these issues are not merely personal to the present occupant of the Throne, but that they affect the entire Constitution? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech," and "Sit down."] If the House resists my claim it will only add the more importance to any words that I might want to use. May I say that the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of rumours? If he were able to give an assurance that the House would have the constitutional issue laid before it, then this anxiety would not persist.

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman confine what he has to say to a simple question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but I ask that there should be an assurance that no irrevocable decision will be taken until at least a statement has

been made to Parliament of the constitutional issues involved, and of the procedure involved in such an event—[HON. MEMBERS: Order."]

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman insists on going beyond a simple question.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that there is in this House a deep personal sympathy with him?

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to my right hon. Friend's question, I must inform him that it is at the moment impossible for me to give a reply. I do not know yet, and cannot know yet, what the King may decide, or how he may decide to act. It is quite impossible for me to enter into hypothetical considerations.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is it not the case that this crisis expresses a deeper crisis in the economic system—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not allowed debating questions on this matter in one direction, and I am not going to allow them in another.

Mr. THURTLE: As the point at issue between Parliament and the King is the question of the morganatic marriage, may I ask whether the opinion of the House will be ascertained upon that particular point?

Mr. BELLENGER: May I ask whether, in view of the serious dislocation which is being caused to industry and trade in this country, the Prime Minister will endeavour to obtain an early reply from His Majesty?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take in the event of the Eleven o'clock Rule being suspended?

The PRIME MINISTER: We are moving the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain the concluding stages of the Public Order Bill and the Railway Freight Rebates Bill; and we hope that there will be time to consider the Money Resolution of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions)


Amendment. We also wish to get tonight Orders Nos. 4 and 5—Instruments of Instructions to the Governors of Indian Provinces and Burma, which the House has already debated.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 359; Noes, 118.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[3.43 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hanbury, Sir C.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Cooper, Rt.Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Hannah, I C.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Harbord, A.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cranborne, Viscount
Harris, Sir P. A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Critchley, A.
Halsam, Sir J (Bolton)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crooke, J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Assheton, R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hepworth, J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cross, R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crossley, A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Balniel, Lord
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Dawson, Sir P.
Holdsworth, H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
De la Bère, R.
Holmes, J. S.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Denville, Alfred
Hopkinson, A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Doland, G. F.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Donner, P. W.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, R. H.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Birchall. Sir J. D.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Blair, Sir R.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hulbert, N. J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Dugdale, Major T, L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Duggan, H. J.
Hunter, T.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dunne, P. R. R. Hurd.
Sir P. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Eckersley, P. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Jackson, Sir H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Ellis, Sir G.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Elmley, Viscount
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kerr. H. W. (Oldham)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Entwistle, C. F.
Kimball, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Errington, E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Bull, B. B.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Everard, W. L.
Leckie, J. A.


Burghley, Lord
Flides, Sir H.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Burgin, Dr, E. L.
Fleming, E. L.
Leigh. Sir. J.


Butler, R. A.
Foot, D. M.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Caine, G. R. Hall.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Campbell. Sir E. T.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Levy, T.


Cortland, J. R. H.
Fremantle. Sir F. E.
Lewis, O.


Cary, R. A.
Furness, S. N.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lloyd, G. W.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gledhill, G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Lyons, A. M.


Channon, H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfiehd)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Granville, E. L.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Choriton, A. E. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Clarke, F. E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Clark, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Grimston, R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gritten, W. G Howard
McKie, J. H.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.


Cobb, Sir Cyril S. (Fulham, West)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Colman, N. C. D.
Guy, J. C. M.
Magnay, T.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.




Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Maxwell, S. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Storey, S.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Remer, J. R.
Srauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rickards, G, W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sutcliffe, H.


Moreing, A. C.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Rowlands, G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Clr'nc'st'r)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Touche, G. C.


Munro, P.
Salmon, Sir I.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Nall, Sir J.
Salt, E. W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Turton, R. H.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Sandys, E. D.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Owen, Major G.
Savery, Servington
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Scott, Lord William
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Patrick, C. M.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Peake, O.
Selley, H. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Peat, C. U.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wells, S. R.


Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Petherick, M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Pilkington, R.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Plugge, L. F.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ponsonby, Col. C. E 
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Power, Sir J. C.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Purbrick, R.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Radford, E. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wragg, H.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ramsbotham, H.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.



Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H 
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rankin, R.
Spens, W. P.
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Gibbins, J.
Maxton, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.


Ammon, C. G.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.


Bellenger, F.
Hardie, G. D.
Paling, W.


Bevan, A.
Henderson. T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.


Broad, F. A.
Hicks, E. G.
Parkinson, J. A.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Potts, J.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ridley, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Salter, Dr. A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Shinwell, E.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Short, A.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Simpson, F. B.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Sorensen, R. W.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Stephen, C.


Gallacher, W.
Markiew, E.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)







Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Thorne, W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Tinker, J. J.
Whiteley, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Walker. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to safeguard the independence of the Judiciary." [Judiciary (Safeguarding) Bill[Lords.]

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ORDER BILL

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Prohibition, of offensive writing conducive to breaches of the peace.)

"Any person who writes any threatening, abusive, or insulting words on the surface of any highway, or on any wall, fence, or building abutting on any public place with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned, shall be guilty of an offence."—[Mr. Lewis.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As all hon. Members know, there are people who from time to time write exhortations and catch-words on walls, buildings, pavements and so forth, and to a large extent the practice, though obviously objectionable, does not lead to serious consequences. If, for example, one writes "Vote for so-and-so" or "We want this or that" no particular harm is done, but in times of public excitement these writings sometimes take a much more serious turn. For example, in connection with the disturbances in the East End recently there were cases where people wrote "Kill the Jews on such and-such a date." Quite obviously any remarks of that kind which are written in public places, where many people see them, are calculated to inflame public opinion, and may in certain circumstances directly lead to a breach of the peace. I am aware that it may be argued that it is difficult to detect the offender, because this is essentially a cowardly form of propaganda; he simply writes something on the wall and runs away; but while that may be true, I feel that if some notice were taken of the practice in this Bill that would be calculated to act as a deterrent. It would appear that the wording of Clause 5 is, perhaps, wide enough to cover this issue, because that Clause says:
Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace 
and so on. It might be held that the word "behaviour" covers this case. My

answer to that argument would be that the value as a deterrent of some such specific words as those proposed in the new Clause is much greater than that of the somewhat very general words of Clause 5. For these reasons, I hope that the Government may feel inclined to adopt the proposed new Clause.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I beg to second the Motion.
I do not think that under the existing law this particular action which we seek to make an offence is, in fact, an offence, and I should be glad to have my hon. and learned Friend's Ruling on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and I both thought that it would be advisable to insert in this Bill some words of a nature similar to those which we are proposing. I think that the question of detection is not an insuperable point. It is not a, very difficult point. Probably a large number of people will continue to write offensive and abusive words on walls without being detected, but it may be that if this Clause is adopted someone will be discovered doing so and will be prosecuted and incur the penalties under the Bill. A few salutary examples might arise as the result of the insertion of these words.

4.2 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): My two hon. Friends have explained very clearly the purpose they have in mind, and in so far as they desire to secure that offensive use of the pavements should not escape proper restraint, and in proper cases punishment, I agree with them entirely; but for reasons which I will state I do not think we ought to add this Clause to the Bill. We must distinguish between writing on footways and roadways and writing on walls, fences and buildings. So far as writing on footways and roadways is concerned, there is no general law which makes it a criminal offence. To write on a footway or roadway that a meeting will take place at a certain place next Sunday is a cheap way of informing passers-by of what might be quite properly arranged, and in many cases struggling or ill-provided organisations do so without the expense of actual advertising. So far as by-laws


exist, over a very large part of the country they secure that the use of the pavement for the writing of offensive things shall be effectively prevented. There is a model form of by-law which is usually put forward to the Home Office and which from time to time we approve. It is now in operation in a great many places. It reads thus:
DEFACING PAVEMENTS, ETC.—No person shall, for the purpose of advertising or disseminating news, propaganda or the like, deface the footway or roadway of any street by writing or other marks …
In a very large number of areas, including 194 Provincial boroughs and 18 Metropolitan boroughs, provisions of that sort have been made. As regards writing on walls, fences and buildings that may be a very offensive thing. In the Metropolitan district there is a provision which makes it punishable in any thoroughfare or public place, without the consent of the owner or occupier to write upon, soil or mark any building, wall, or fence with chalk or paint. In the same way, outside the Metropolitan area, there are by-laws which deal with that sort of subject-matter. The short answer to my hon. Friends, is that really this matter is dealt with under the existing law. I do not think we ought to carry these things to a pedantic extent. If the substance of the thing is secured without doing a possible injustice to individuals who do not mean any harm, it is better to have it in that way. The law is far from being a dead letter. I have asked for information and I am told that police action has been taken in 17 cases of writing upon roads, footways or walls in one part of the Metropolitan area. I have the details here. I hope the House, therefore, will take the view that this matter is properly dealt with under the existing law and that we ought not to burden this Bill, which deals with matters of more general importance, by the adoption of this Clause.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I do not know what the penalty is under the by-laws of the authorities. I assume that it is a good deal less than the penalty under the Bill. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider the matter in that light. I would be most adverse to penalising anyone for writing up a notice informing passers-by when a meeting is to take place. The new Clause makes it illegal to use any

"abusive, threatening or insulting words" on any wall, fence or building. It seems to me rather anomalous that if you speak insulting words in the street it will be an offence punishable by possibly three months' imprisonment, but that if instead of speaking the words you write them you will be treated only under a by-law, if the town in which you live has incorporated the model by-law; but otherwise not at all. Perhaps when the Bill is in another place the Government will reconsider this question, not perhaps by means of a new Clause but by widening the scope of Clause 5 so as to make it clear that a person may be guilty if, instead of speaking the offensive words, he writes them, with the same hostile intention before the writing.

Sir J. SIMON: It is quite true that the penalties under the by-laws are not as severe as the penalties provided under the Bill. Clause 5 is a Clause which applies, with a more serious risk of penalty, not only to words, but to behaviour, and I do not see any reason why if there was any case of abusive or insulting behaviour under that Clause it might not be a case of writing insulting words on the pavement. I hope my hon. Friends will think that this matter is much better dealt with by local by-law on the motion of popularly-elected local authorities, because the more serious offences are already covered by the Bill.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.— (Prohibition of uniforms in connection with political objects.)

4.9 p.m.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after "signifying," to insert "his."
This is a very short Amendment and I shall deal with it very shortly, though it covers a very important point. The Clause as it stands might do a considerable amount of injustice to an honourable profession. The position is that if an actor who follows his ordinary calling were called upon to play a part in a stage play, or even in a cinema, portraying the character of a Fascist or Communist, a Redshirt or Brownshirt, he would, I understand, by appearing on the stage be appearing in a public place and, therefore, would be subject to the penalties under this Bill and be guilty of an offence.


If we realise that the actor in playing his part is only portraying the character written for him, we realise that he is not in himself "signifying association with any political organisation" by wearing a uniform. If we inserted the word "his" it would clearly have to be shown that the actor himself was showing his personal association with that political organisation or creed before he could be penalised under the Bill for committing an offence. I hope the House will see that this very important section of the public who entertain us are relieved of the stigma of having committed a political offence by a mere technical breach of this provision.

4.11 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
It raises a small, but quite an important point, particularly as the Sub-section goes on to say, "or with the promotion of any political object." For example, if a play is performed dealing with the struggle between Communism and Fascism, it becomes a public meeting. It might be a play arranged in order to raise funds for a political party, and it signifies association with a political organisation in an indirect sense. It would be a little awkward if the ardent comrades of my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), dressed up in Nazi uniforms for the purpose of demonstrating the horrors of Fascism at a Communist meeting, found themselves all marched to the police court and charged with wearing Fascist uniforms. That would lead to all sorts of domestic and political troubles.

Sir J. SIMON: I am going to suggest that we accept this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) wrote to me and pointed out that unless some such change as this was made in the Clause theatrical performances or the like might unintentionally come within the ban of the Clause; and the hon. Lady who has Seconded the Amendment has drawn a picture so faithfully as to convince the whole House, I feel sure. If there were to be, in the interests of a particular political organisation, some representation on the stage and she on that occasion was not entirely in red but entirely in black, I should be the first to

say of her that she was only playing a part. On behalf of the Government I accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to

4.14 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert:
so, however, that if that person is re-manded in custody he shall, after the expiration of a period of eight days from the date on which he was so remanded, be entitled to be discharged from custody on entering into a recognisance without sureties unless within that period the Attorney-General has consented to such further proceedings as aforesaid.
This Amendment has been moved to meet a. point that was raised during the Committee stage. It was then pointed out that if a person was remanded in custody by the magistrates, and if the consent of the Attorney-General to proceedings was not forthcoming within seven days, he might be kept in custody for a longer period. We thought that was a reasonable point, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put this Amendment on the Paper in order to meet it.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of quasi-military rganisations.)

4.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, after the first "and," to insert "in accordance with rules of court."
This Amendment and that which follows it upon the Paper—in line 39, to leave out from "and" to "orders," in line 41, and to insert make such further "—go together. They are put down to fulfil the promise made to the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) with regard to Sub-section (3), which empowers the High Court to direct an inquiry in regard to the affairs of an association. The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out that, as the Clause was drafted, there was express reference to liabilities incurred before the application for an inquiry, and that it might be thought that the House of Commons intended that the parties should not be heard before the court had directed the inquiry. We all agree that that is not the result which we intend. The Amend-


ment now leaves the whole matter to be dealt with by the Rules of Court. There is no doubt that the general line of those Rules will be the same as those dealing with similar matters, namely, that there will be power to get an interim order to stop ale disposal of the property before any further step is taken. We may be sure that all interested parties who can satisfy the court that they ought to be heard will be heard.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 39, leave out from "and" to "orders," in line 41, and insert "make such further."—[The Attorney-General.]

4.19 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 3, line 9, to leave out "of," and to insert:
incurred in connection with any such inquiry and report as aforesaid or in.
This is in the nature of a drafting Amendment, which purports, incidentally, to make it plain that the court has power to order that the costs of the inquiry shall be paid out of the funds of the association, in addition to any other costs which may be incurred.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 9, after "and," insert "may order that."—[The Attorney-General.]

4.20 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, after "by," to insert:
any person taking part in the control or management of an association or in organising, training or equipping.
This Amendment arises out of a discussion in Committee on paragraph 2 of Sub-section (4) of the Clause, dealing with the question of evidence. It was said that although it might be necessary to have the word "adherents" in certain parts of the Bill, or words which have a similar rather vague connotation, it would be wrong to have such a word as applying to those whose statement should be admissible as evidence under the provisions of the Sub-section. After careful consideration of the best way to secure that object, my right hon. Friend has decided to put forward the Amendment which, as the Committee will see, defines the class of person. Perhaps these words go rather further than the

suggestion which was made on the Committee stage, that the only admissible evidence should be the evidence of those who could be proved to be responsible members of the association.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I am a little troubled and puzzled about the attitude of the Government on this point. Compared with the form in which the Clause was originally framed, there has been a very strange change of view. Changes of view do not worry me in the least, if we can see what is best. If I may give short labels to the various people involved, and call those who organise, train, equip, control or manage, the "officers," the members, the "rank and file" and the adherents the "hangers-on," the original Clause said that what should be given in evidence to wind up an organisation was anything said by the officers, the rank and file, the hangers-on or people, who, though not even hangers-on, looked as though they were. Everybody agreed that that was too mild. In the Committee, the Government took a view which purists on the back benches on both sides of the Committee thought was still going a little far, and proposed officers—which implied, of course, members—rank and file and hangers-on; but that might still be a little too wide
What are the Government doing now I am only seeking to arrive at a proceeding which, on the one hand, will not inflict an injustice and, on the other, will do what is reasonable, to get evidence to procure a conviction. The Amendment now moved practically says "officers only," because the words "members" or "adherents" become the mere object, as the grammarians say, to the persons controlling, organising, training or equipping. I think the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary will agree that if you were to cut the Subsection wholly out, the question of the admissability, of evidence in any particular case would probably be almost the same as though it were in, in the form now proposed. I agree that it would still have a certain advantage. Speaking objectively, I feel that what is now proposed to be done by the Government is much too narrow, and deprives the Sub-section of any force. My own peculiar mentality leads me to welcome it, because I have an old-fashioned affection for not proving things against people


unless they are really responsible for them. The great bulk of the people for whom I have the honour to speak feel that this Amendment will make the machinery not work at all. I do not want to divide the House about it, and I should be very happy if the Government could find words, between now and the Bill going to the other place, which were something between "officer" and "rank and file."

4.27 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: Should not some such word as "knowingly" be inserted? If the black, red or green shirts or blouses be regarded as the uniform of any particular association, and if I were to go to Bourne and Hollingsworth and order two dozen red silk blouses, the unfortunate head of the department would not know whether I wanted them for my personal use, to distribute as Christmas presents or to organise a fierce Amazon brigade to deal firmly with the Home Secretary because of some action of his of which I disapproved. In that case, who would be responsible A large order might be given for one particular-coloured scarf; have the firm who receive the order to satisfy themselves that they are not equipping an illegal political organisation? I know very little about the law, but I know there are weird people wandering around called common informers. If there were a case which was exciting public opinion and there were a good deal of feeling about it, and someone raised the question of who had provided the uniforms, would the wholesale or retail draper who had supplied them in all innocence be taken as having equippel an organisation? The word "knowingly" might meet the case, and protect the innocent retailer.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: On these benches we took strong objection to this Sub-section when it was being considered in Committee, and I think our objection was supported by many Members in all quarters of the House. I do not think that any portion of the Bill has been subjected to so much criticism in this House and so much comment in the Press. The Amendment now proposed by the Government will remove the objections that we feel, and, although the hon. Lady the Member for

Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) might be right in saying that it will perhaps cause Subsection (4) not to operate at all, we are not going to shed any tears about that; the particular injustice involved by the alteration of the ordinary rules of court will now be removed, and we desire to thank the Government for having accepted the principle.

4.31 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I should like to ask the Attorney-General a question on a point of drafting. The Amendment refers to
any person taking part in the control or management of an association.
It then goes on to refer to
organising, training or equipping.
But it does not say what is being organised, trained or equipped, and apparently it would cover anybody who organises anything.

Sir J. SIMON: There is an Amendment later dealing with that point.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understood that the words which follow were to be deleted, and I am much obliged to the Home Secretary for his interjection.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should like to ask what, if anything, will be left of Sub-section (4) if this Amendment is carried. I thought that the object of Sub-section (4), as the Bill was originally drafted, was to enable the court to provide, as evidence against the promoters of an organisation, the testimony of people whom they had organised or equipped. It seems to me that, if these words are inserted, the field from which evidence can be selected will be exceedingly narrow, and, that being so, I very much hope the Government will reconsider the insertion of these words, which to many of us seem to nullify the object of the Sub-section.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I may reply to the points which have been raised. Dealing first with the point put by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), in my view it is not at all true to say that this Amendment will prevent the Clause from having the main effect for which it was originally intended. The instance I gave in Committee in justification of the Clause was that of a leader—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: When the Attorney-General says "the Clause," I presume he means the Sub-section?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, I mean the Sub-section. I gave the instance of the leader who is being prosecuted as someone who, the prosecution seek to show, was taking part in the control or management of the association—who was the brains of the concern. The case intended to be covered by the Sub-clause is the case where you can show that somewhere a group of members of the association was being drilled, where commands were being given, people were told to form fours, march about, and so on, the commander being the person who is being prosecuted. If there were a small body of members giving orders of this kind which would bring, or might bring, the association within the Clause, and if you sought to give evidence of what the lieutenant said, the orders he gave, and the things done, the objection might be raised that you were seeking to give in evidence things which did not happen in the presence of the accused person. That is the kind of case which we have in mind, and quite clearly it is still governed by the words which it is proposed to insert. I quite agree, of course, that with these words inserted the scope of the Clause is not as wide as it was before, but in a matter of this kind it is impossible to please everyone, and one has to weigh the arguments put forward from those benches with the general intention, possibly not on those benches, but in all other parts of the House. We think that this Sub-clause is not an unreasonable one if properly safeguarded, having regard to the kind of subject-matter with which we are dealing.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson)—what I may call the Bourne and Hollingsworth point—I do not know that Messrs. Bourne and Hollingsworth are in any danger, because, although technically under this Clause it might be that evidence could be called that Messrs. Bourne and Hollingsworth had supplied shirts, or whatever it might be, it would, of course, be quite irrelevant and useless to call that evidence. Messrs. Bourne and Hollingsworth would ex hypothesi not be in the dock; the only people who would be in the dock would be people coming under Sub-section (1) who had taken part in the control or management

of the association, and nobody would suggest that people who supplied jerseys and so on were taking part in the control or management of the association. It is necessary to have the word "equipping" because you want to be able to cover anything in the nature of equipping by responsible members of the association, and, if responsible members of the association had dealt out shirts and so on, that is the kind of thing which would be covered by the Clause.

Miss WILKINSON: If a local cooperative society—I give the case of a co-operative society because there seems to be a misguided idea among some hon. Members on the opposite benches that a co-operative society is also a political organisation—had an order to supply to a Communist or Labour organisation shirts that were held to be illegal, would there be any danger of that society being involved in a prosecution?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: None whatever.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 20, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 23.

This is a consequential Amendment.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: The Attorney-General says that this Amendment is consequential, and that is true in the sense that, the one Amendment having been moved, the other must also be moved, but I would ask the Government to consider leaving these words in. A number of people have felt anxiety about the word "adherent," because, if it is put in, you might have some organisation which people might be said to adhere to although they hate the sight of it, while on the other hand, if the word "adherent" is not put in, someone might organise a body which had no members but which had a lot of adherents. The word occurs in Subsection (1), but it has become necessary in Sub-section (4) in particular. I think a, great many people would feel happier if there were a definition of the word "adherent" as meaning a person who adheres to an association more or less with its assent and not against its will. While it might be said that the definition ought to be moved from one place to another, I appeal to the Government to


retain these words for the purpose of Sub-section (1) because they are a very good definition.

4.43 p.m.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: It seemed to me that the Amendment was consequential, or I would have expounded it a little more when it was called. I appreciated the argument that was put forward at an earlier stage that the application of these words was mainly to this Sub-section, and that was why the Committee inserted the definition here. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that for the purposes of the other part of the Bill it is necessary to have some word other than "members," because otherwise it might be possible for an association to dodge the Bill by saying, "None of these people are members; we only have 20 members; the rest are associates or something other than members." For the purposes of Sub-section (4) we have now completely met the point raised in Committee by putting in the words inserted in a previous Amendment. How far it is in order to pursue the question whether evil results might arise from the use of this word in other parts of the Clause, I do not know, but I may perhaps be permitted to say that, so far as we are concerned, we think that no such evil can arise.

Amendment agreed to.

4.44 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 44, at the end, to insert:
(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the organisation of a reasonable number of persons to be employed as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting held upon private premises, or the instruction of those persons in their lawful duties as such stewards, or their equipment with badges or other distinguishing signs.
This Amendment is to be read in conjunction with a later Amendment to Clause 9 which I have on the Paper—in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Private premises ' means premises to which the public have access (whether on payment or otherwise) only by permission of the owner, occupier, or lessee of the premises.
The main point arises on the Amendment which I am now moving. The House will recall that in Committee the question was raised by the hon. Member

for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) as to whether or not there was any possibility of the words of Section 2, which we had just passed, applying to prevent the use of stewards in the ordinary and normal way at a public meeting. His argument was a very ingenious one. He said that stewards, he feared, might be regarded as persons organised and trained for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting a political object, namely, the return of the candidate on whose behalf, it might be, the meeting was being held. I ventured to observe during the Committee stage that it appeared to me that this was rather a fine-drawn interpretation of language, and that it might well be held that, if the stewards had any objection to someone addressing the meeting and asked him to leave, they were not really doing it for the purpose of promoting any political object, but only for the purpose of seeing that reasonable order was kept, which I suppose would be the object of all persons, or at any rate of all candidates. But on reflection I was disposed to think that there was more in the point than there appeared to be, and I said that, if we could find a proper form of words to protect what hon. Members in all parts of the Committee agreed must be protected, it would be right to insert such words. The words I am moving are not words which make an exception, but words which in effect amount to a clarification of the meaning of what we are doing.
The Amendment has been very carefully drawn to give no encouragement whatever to a possible form of arrangement which we all, wherever we sit, or whatever our convictions may be, must unite to discourage in every possible way. To put a lot of people in a hall for the purpose of bullying those who are merely attending and making a reasonable use of their right to attend without disturbing at all is not legitimate stewarding. It is a monstrous attempt to bully and dragoon people who have their rights as free citizens when they attend a public meeting. We have, therefore, inserted the limitation, first of all, that the number of stewards must be reasonable. That is intended to make it plain that the organisation of a large standing army is quite outside anything that the House of Commons will permit. Of course, it is necessary to say that the public meeting


is held on private premises because there can be no question of ejecting interrupters at a meeting held in a public place to which police have access, or in a street. In the third place we have been very careful to put in the word "lawful" before the word "duties." The House may consider a very familiar proposition to all who have had any legal training, and it is a very necessary proposition for all citizens to remember that, even though you have your rights, whatever they may be, you are not entitled to use your force or that of your friends to secure those rights beyond a point that is reasonably necessary.
About 100 years ago there was a gentleman called Captain Moir who found a boy up an apple tree in his orchard stealing the apples, and I daresay eating them in the branches of the tree. There is no doubt that Captain Moir had a perfect right to say that no one ought to take the apples off that tree, but the proposition that you may use any amount of force that is necessary to stop this wrong being done is a mistaken proposition. You are only entitled to use that amount of force which is reasonable having regard to the wrong that is being done. Unfortunately, Captain Moir did not understand that and, as he could not climb the tree, and the boy would not stop taking the apples, he let off his gun, the boy fell, and ultimately died and Captain Moir was hanged. Yet he was only engaged in using that amount of force which was necessary in order to protect his rights. It is a great mistake to suppose that everyone can use that amount of force which is necessary to protect his rights. He is only entitled to use that amount of force which is reasonable having regard to the circumstances. I hope all stewards will be instructed according to that view.
Lastly, stewards will very likely wish to be equipped, if that is the word—I do not know from what emporium—with badges and rosettes—no one can complain because of that—but they certainly must not be equipped with any instrument of force. What we have tried to do is to state on the face of the Bill what everyone will agree is the position that ought to be protected. We are not trying to alter the ordinary practice of a well-conducted ordinary political meeting. The words have been very carefully drafted, and I hape they will commend themselves to the House.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. A. BEVAN: The language that it is sought to import into the Bill alarms me by its width. We have been constrained to accept the provisions of the Bill because it was represented to us that it would prevent the organisation of private armies. I conceive that under this proposal it will still be possible to maintain quite a considerable force in existence. There can be a permanent organisation. It does not mean that you merely have an ad hoc organisation for a single meeting. We have accepted a considerable number of things which in our judgment went beyond the need for prohibiting the existence of a private force. We are now re-importing into the Bill the possibility of an organised, disciplined and semi-military force. The organisation must have a headquarters, so we may conceivably have a barracks. Furthermore, not only can you have a permanent organisation, not only can you have a headquarters where they may be instructed, but you may also instruct them, or drill them, in their duty as stewards. The first excuse advanced by the Fascists in this country for establishing their semi-military organisation was the alleged need for maintaining order at their meetings. Now it seems to me that we are admitting in these words that it is necessary to Maintain such an organisation and necessary to instruct them in their duties. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he has safeguarded himself by putting in the word "lawful" before "duties." I have had no legal training whatever, but it, seems to me that the importation of the word "lawful" does nothing at all to strengthen the language, because no steward could in the discharge of his duties do an unlawful thing.

Sir J. SIMON: Obviously, if people were engaged in instructing stewards in unlawful methods, this is the way to hit the nail on the head.

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that it would be a violation of the existing law if any body of persons should be assembled for the purpose of committing unlawful acts. It would be a violation to organise them to break the law. The importation of the word "lawful" is a mere euphemism. It does nothing to strengthen the Clause. It is a piece of corn that is put down in the hope that we will pick it up and swallow the whole


of the language. The Amendment refers to "their equipment, with badges and other distinguishing signs." It might have stopped at badges, because a badge is quite enough to distinguish a steward. Do the rest of the words really import the blouse or the shirt? That is a distinguishing sign; so long as it can be shown that, whatever the equipment might be, it is an equipment for the purpose of distinguishing the stewards as stewards, and in order to distinguish them they must all wear the same thing. Thus you have re-imported into the Bill all the features that you are trying to avoid. I am sure that, if the Home Secretary was still practising at the Bar, if I employed him he could assist me in keeping a. considerable organisation under these words. In the ordinary practice, in holding public meetings, we have a certain number of people to act as stewards. They vary usually from meeting to meeting. We have not a number of people who are permanently employed in the capacity of steward. Those who act as stewards are an ad hoc collection of people who serve for that particular meeting.
But this is an organisation of stewards existing in between meetings because they have to be instructed in complicated, lawful duties. You have an organisation to instruct them, and you have badges and uniforms. If you carry on a number of different meetings at one and the same time, if you have a large number of meetings going on in London and the provinces simultaneously, you want a very considerable number of stewards, so you can have quite a considerable force in existence. All that the leader or lieutenant has to do is to say, "I have 50 or 60 meetings going on simultaneously in London and elsewhere. How many stewards shall I want for each meeting?" It may be 30, 50 or 100. There is no definition. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, or my hon. Friends, have considered the significance of the language but it seems to me that everything to which we take exception can now be re-imported into the Bill.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: If I thought the hon. Member's argument was correct I should certainly join with him in his opposition to this form of words, but it seems to me that his argument is not

well founded. I think the insertion of the word "lawful" does something to avoid the precise evils which he has in mind, because if you have a group of stewards organised, not to use undue force, such as some of us think has been used in meetings in the last year or two; that would not come within the word "lawful."

Mr. BEVAN: I understand that the amount of force that you are entitled by law to use in removing an interrupter depends entirely on the resistance that the interrupter puts up, and you do not know beforehand to what extent he is going to resist. Therefore, it is difficult to define what are lawful or unlawful instructions.

Mr. FOOT: Suppose you were to organise a group of stewards with knuckle-dusters, I should say that that would go far beyond the use of any lawful force. It is precisely that sort of point which I have in mind, and by using the word "lawful" here, we are drawing a distinction between the legitimate use of stewards for removing an interrupter who refuses to be silent and in fact holds up the meeting, and stewards who use very different methods and quite unnecessary force. The hon. Gentleman was rather troubled lest this Clause might reintroduce the political uniform. When I first read the form of words, I admit that I rather wondered whether the words "other distinguishing signs" might not be held to cover uniform. I suggest that it is covered by the words at the beginning of the Sub-section, "Nothing in this Section." It would be held to make unlawful the use of badges or distinguishing signs by stewards, but I submit to the hon. and learned Gentleman behind me and other hon. Members in different parts of the House who speak with greater authority than I, that this does not in any way interfere with Clause 1, which absolutely prohibits political uniforms except on ceremonial or other special occasions. The reason why I was glad to see this form of words added is that in Clause 6 we strengthen the provisions of the Public Meeting Act. I do not object to that, but some of us do not want to see the police called in very often at public meetings. It is something that we want to see only in the last resort, and, speaking as one who at the last two general elections suffered as


much as anyone in the country from political rowdyism, even to the extent that it was sometimes impossible to speak, in all these circumstances, I do not want the police called in except where there is no other way of dealing with the matter.
I see on the Order Paper certain further Amendments to Clause 6, and the provision by which a prosecution cannot be initiated by the police has to go. As I. understand it, the police will, on their own responsibility, be able to initiate the prosecution under the Public Meeting Act. It extends the powers which were contemplated when first the Bill was introduced. If it was felt that there was some ground for thinking that something in the Clause as it originally stood might hit at the organisation of stewards, that it would mean there would be no means of preserving order at public meetings short of calling in the police. If I may suggest to hon. Members above the Gangway, that is the situation which I want to avoid. I want to take measures to expel persons who try to prevent speaking and attempt to break up a public meeting without calling in the police, as I believe that that is something you should do only in the last resort, and for that reason my hon. Friends and I propose to support the Amendment.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for introducing this Subsection. I moved an Amendment dealing with this subject on the Committee stage on behalf of certain hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend then promised to look into the matter if we withdrew the Amendment. I, for my part, think that he has handsomely fulfilled his promise. As far as Members of the House generally are concerned, most of us would agree that anything within reason that can be done to prevent meetings from being broken up is in all our interests. There are very few persons who really think that it is any advantage to have the meetings of their opponents broken up. We felt that unless a provision of this kind were put into the Bill, there might be difficulty in organising stewards in the way we have all been accustomed, and it might lead to further rowdyism at meetings. I do not know what the experience of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has been. Perhaps he has been fortunate in his opponents in the

years since he first stood for Parliament, but there are other hon. Members who have not been so fortunate and who know what it is to have organised bands of rowdies imported from other Divisions for the express purpose of breaking up their meetings. Anybody who has seen that kind of thing will agree it is most desirable that a reasonable number of stewards should be allowed, and that there should be no doubt about their being allowed. I listened very carefully to the objections put forward by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, and I cannot feel that there was great weight and substance in them. He seemed to be straining the language of the Clause beyond anything it could stand. We may rest assured that the only interpretation that can be nut upon these words is that which my right hon. Friend put upon them when he moved the Sub-section, and that it will allow us to provide a reasonable number of specialised stewards, and not to go beyond that provision.

5.8 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I am very glad that something of this kind is being inserted in the Bill, but I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that perhaps the opening words of the Sub-section are a little unfortunate in their possible interpretation. The words are:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the organisation of a reasonable number of persons to be employed as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at any public meeting.
That can clearly cover the organisation of a band of stewards who can go to any public meeting, and that, I am sure, is not what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. He has in mind the ad hoc employment of stewards at a public meeting. May I suggest that other words would more aptly cover what he has in mind, and would not lay him open to the possible danger of it being argued that some one could organise a standing band of stewards? I suggest that the words might be:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the employment as stewards to assist in the preservation of order at a public meeting, held upon private premises, of a reasonable number of persons,
and so on. That would mean that you could employ at a specific public meeting


a reasonable number of persons as stewards, but you could not have a standing army of stewards to go round from public meeting to public meeting. I feel that the danger is in these words. I appreciate that they are not intended to cover that, but it might ingeniously be argued that they were wide enough to cover a standing army of stewards, and that therefore they might manage to get in under this Sub-section that which it is aimed at prohibiting in the first Subsecton. I am sure that the words I have suggested, or similar words, would be quite as effective to achieve what all of us want to achieve, and would not lay the Clause open to the danger of being so widely construed as to let in something that none of us wants to let in.

5.10 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I hope that the Government will not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). We on this side of the House are very grateful to the Home Secretary and to the Attorney-General for putting in these words. We asked that they should be put in, and we had in mind exactly the kind of case which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite apparently wishes to prevent. As I have said before, it has been my experience and custom at general and at by-elections to have a number of public persons who are willing to act as stewards at meetings, not at one meeting but at all meetings. What is the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman to what he described as a standing army of
stewards?

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not know whether the Noble Lord was in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was putting the point,. The objection was that it was said in the early days that the Fascist organisation was necessary to preserve order at meetings, and that it was for that purpose that it was built up into a standing army. The point is that if you want to avoid militarisation and standing armies in association with politics, you do not want to give encouragement to this great standing army.

Earl WINTERTON: The Left wing organisations in this country have been allowed to indulge in this kind of thing during the last 10 years.[An HON.

MEMBER: "What has that to do with it?"] In spite of that interruption I intend to state the truth. In this as in every other country the most inimical system of controlled organisations on the Right have been brought about by the factious actions of the Left. And then they cry out in horror and say, "They use violence against us and, say nasty things to us, and, of course, we never do it." I should not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would take that attitude.

Sir S. CRIPPS: If the Noble Lord appeals to me, I do not take that attitude, because the only interruptions I have ever had at my meetings have been from Conservatives.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would interrupt. The last people who will be interrupted by the extreme Left are those who are on it. To the best of my belief, no responsible Member of the Labour party in this House or the country has ever done anything in the slightest degree to encourage this sort of thing, but, on the contrary, has done everything to discourage it. But the reason that the Fascists have had this excuse, which I admit is slender, is exactly because of what I have described. Quite apart from the Fascists, it is in the interests of the general public that order should be maintained at public meetings, and it can only be maintained by stewards. The Subsection as it stands meets the desire, which, I understand, all sections of the House wish to see adopted, and for that reason I support it.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I rise to support the appeal which has been made to the Government to modify the words in the proposed Sub-section, and I do so for a reason, which, I am sure, will be appreciated by the Lord Advocate, because as a fellow representative of the City of Edinburgh he will not forget easily the scenes which took place in that city a few months ago. It was on the occasion of a Fascist meeting in the Usher Hall. A body of something like 150 stewards, so-called, were imported into the city nominally for the purpose of preserving order in the Usher Hall, and most disgraceful scenes were witnessed.

Sir J. SIMON: What did they do?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I can only say that there was a very large number of accusations of violence on both sides, both inside the meeting and outside, and I am sure that the Lord Advocate will have all the facts fully in mind, because he went into the allegations. I was not on the spot, and only heard them from out side. I suggest to the Home Secretary that after full consultation with the Lord Advocate he will no doubt be 'acquainted with all that took place.
With all due respect to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) the House is very largely agreed on what we want to obtain. The only question is how far the words which the Government propose to insert will attain our general object, or whether they will allow the very thing which we are trying to prevent in this Bill. We are all agreed that we want to see order kept at public meetings. On a subsequent Clause we supported the Noble Lord in Committee, and I intend to support the proposal on the Report stage. We are all agreed as to the desirability of order being kept at meetings, and the right persons to keep order in the first instance should be the stewards. We agree that every public meeting should have stewards, whose primary business is to show people to their seats and to perform the normal avocation of stewards, and only if necessary to take the very regrettable step of ejecting a person or persons in case of persistent obstruction to the objects of the meeting.
What we do not want to see is the importation of stewards into a locality, stewards who have been organised and trained at some headquarters and who may not go to the meeting for the avowed purpose of displaying violence, but in fact it often works out in that result. The Government may say that they have covered that point by the word "lawfully" in this proviso, but I am very doubtful whether that does cover the point completely, for it will be possible, as was the case in Edinburgh, to bring 150 people to a meeting. Who is going precisely to question the instructions that have been given in the organisation of these stewards? What we do know is that these stewards do, on some occasions, go beyond what is lawful action. It is then open for the promoters

of the meeting to say: "It is true that the stewards may have done things which were found to be unlawful, but that is not what we trained them to do." It should be made abundantly clear that stewards organised locally, and only occasionally by importations, should be available for use in the preservation of order. I am afraid that if the proviso is inserted in the proposed words it will open the door to one of the very things which some of us had hoped the Bill was intended to prevent.

5.19 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I hope the Lord Advocate will not listen to the blandishments of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). Surely, the hon. Member and his friends are arguing from the wrong end. The protests which he has made and which apply purely to Fascists, would seem to apply, presumably, to Unionists in the future.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Not at all.

Captain RAMSAY: I am glad if I misunderstood the hon. Member. As I understood him, he was referring to the recent behaviour of Fascists in Edinburgh and deducing from that the future behaviour of stewards of a political party.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I never intended by any implication to bring in the Unionist party. What I said was that the object of the Bill is understood to be to prevent the Fascists doing what they are doing at the present time, and that if the proviso were inserted in this form it would leave the door open, not for Members of the Unionist party, but for the Fascists to do what we are seeking to prevent.

Captain RAMSAY: I am glad to have that further explanation, but I still think that it is stretching the point too far, to assume that, if stewards are brought to a district from a place some miles away, ipso facto there is a danger of their behaving improperly and breaking the law. I should think that the opposite would be the fact, and that if stewards were brought from a distance by a central organisation and they behaved in an improper manner a charge might much more easily be brought against the central organisation. Moreover, it is possible


that local persons might not be so well trained and might lose their heads. I am very happy in the fact that I have not needed stewards at my meetings, although I remember the election before last when a number of people followed me about in charabancs for the purpose of interrupting my meetings. [Interruption.] I have no doubt that some of these things come near home to some of the hon. Members opposite, but the more noise they make the more they will get. In some places where disturbances are likely to occur it is very often difficult to get stewards, and it is not desirable that people who live next door to one another should be called upon to put each other out of a meeting. The reason why the Fascist organisations have grown is because no action has been taken by the Unionist party or the Liberal party in the past to protect their public rights in this regard. The action which the Government propose to take by retaining these words in the Bill will do as much to keep the Fascist movement in check as anything else in the Bill, and I hope the Lord Advocate will in no sense listen to the importunities of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: This is a very simple problem and one which can be discussed without heat. Therefore, it is one which I perhaps ought not to attempt to discuss. The first problem is to see that this provision does not prevent normal people from having their normal meetings normally stewarded. The second point, and it is a difficult problem, is to make sure that anything we do now does not give the Fascists a loophole. If I were advising the Fascist organisation under this Clause I should say to them, "Organise two parties. Call one the society of stewards and the other the stewards' association. Call one the S.S. and the other the S.A." That is the sort of thing that I am afraid of. The Noble Lord referred to public-spirited persons who stewarded meetings, but I would point out that those same public-spirited persons acting at any meeting are not in any danger from this Clause as proposed to be amended. The people we are aiming at are not public-spirited people but people who get spirited in the public house.
I appeal to the Government to do one of two things. In the first place, to consider whether they cannot omit this Subsection, or else to adopt the words of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The only demerit about that suggestion is that I attempted to draft an Amendment and, without any communication to the hon. and learned Member, even telepathically, I produced almost exactly the same words. If the promoters of meetings are allowed to employ a reasonable number of stewards one could always get the public-spirited people of whom the Noble Lord spoke, locally or from a distance. Your local people may not in all cases be physically strong, as a result of the operation of the means test, and, therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in fetching people from elsewhere. If it is said that it is not really practicable to have to employ a number of persons each time—according to a Latin phrase used by one who is no longer with us—by an ad hoc arrangement, then I suggest that the position is sufficiently covered by the fact that you are expressly authorised by the Subsection to exercise the right to instruct stewards. That gives sufficient right to make arrangement to give instruction and even a little ephemeral, slight drilling to make sure that the stewards can operate successfully. If the proviso were altered as suggested by the, hon. and learned Member for East Bristol it would achieve everything that it should and nothing that it should not.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I think the weakness of the proposition is in the authorisation of the right of the stewards to equipment with badges or other distinguishing signs. I fear that if such a power is to be conferred it will mean the perpetuation of a situation similar to what prevails at the present time. A meeting was held in Newcastle at which Sir Oswald Mosley spoke. He was preceded by the entry into the hall of, according to the chief constable's estimate, 150 stewards, for the purpose of preserving order. These men were in uniform. Under this Bill the same number might go to a meeting wearing badges, or they might be without their coats, or they might have some other distinguishing mark, which would show that they had been specially trained and


equipped for doing what they term as preserving order.
I had an illustration of the preservation of order at that meeting. Immediately in front of me was a harmless individual connected with the local Labour party, who had known Sir Oswald Mosley when he was at Newcastle on a previous occasion. Sir Oswald had been denouncing the local Conservative party and the Conservative party generally and then he proceeded roundly to denounce the Labour party. Thereupon the individual in question called out: "You were once a member." Immediately two stewards rushed to the man placed their hands on his shoulders and told him that if he interrupted again they would throw him out. If we permit the organisation of a body of men in his way they can and they will overawe and brow-beat audiences, as is commonly done by Fascists at the present time. I feel that to legalise the organisation of stewards is in excess of the necessities of the times. Stewards are always available in the audience. I have not seen any lack of stewards, and to organise stewards with special distinguishing marks, people who are determined to interfere with free speech by threats, can be carried out under the proposed Sub-section.

5.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There is clearly a large measure of agreement in the House on this matter. I should like to remind hon. Members of the origin of this Amendment. In the Committee stage the question was discussed as to whether the words might be construed as covering stewards, and I advanced the view that they probably could not be so construed, although I am bound to say that that view did not commend itself to any quarter of the Committee. I appreciate the feeling which has been expressed as to the undesirability of calling in the police to meetings and the desirability of order being maintained in ordinary cases by stewards. The Committee felt, as the House now feels, that it would not be right to put in the Statute words which might be construed as making it an offence to organise a body of stewards but, on the other hand, no one wants to see a private army organised under the cloak of stewards. Stewards could be organised under the

Bill as unamended, and there was the possibility of the danger, if the Bill was left unamended, of people misusing a legal right for an illegal purpose. That is a danger which to some extent is present in a great many cases. If people can dress up an illegal activity and make it look legal they do so, and it is for the prosecution to prove and expose such actions.
I think that the words suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and supported by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) would cut out a great deal of perfectly proper activity. No one wants to confine stewards to one meeting, as I understand the hon. and learned Member suggested. There is no objection to having a body of men who are prepared to go round and perform the proper duties of stewards. In regard to the case mentioned by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), there was clearly an abuse of the right of stewards, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate tells me that he prosecuted a number of people for what was done at that meeting. That to some extent can be dealt with and was dealt with under the existing law.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It might be argued that one or two of these stewards exceeded their instructions, and therefore I still suggest that the Subsection might give the promoters of the meeting a loophole to escape responsibility.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Clearly, quite apart from this new Sub-section, you might organise a reasonable number of stewards before the meeting starts, and nobody could say that any wrong had been done. What we want to avoid is using words which could really be a cloak for a private army or a body of persons designed as such. My right hon. Friend has that point very much in mind, and we thought that we had by these words stopped up a loophole. The words "a reasonable number of persons to be employed," are intended to be a reasonable number of persons at a particular meeting. It is very important to bear in mind that the law does not allow my right hon. Friend to claim the use of all necessary force; it only allows him a force which is reasonable, having regard


to the offence which is being committed. Professor Dicey comments on the case of the unfortunate Captain Moir. I will just read two sentences:
He was, it would seem, a well-meaning man, imbued with too rigid an idea of authority. He perished from ignorance of law. His fate is a warning to theorists who incline to the legal heresy that every right may lawfully be defended by the force necessary for its assertion.
That must be borne in mind by all future stewards. While making it perfectly clear that we are going to see that these words are not cut down so that they do not cover a reasonable organisation, my right hon. Friend will have a look at them again and see whether by altering the Sub-section or by using the word "organising" instead of "organisation" we can stop up any further loophole which might be used by any private organisation in the country.

5.37 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I appreciate the tone and temper in which the Attorney-General has met our criticism. When we originally discussed this matter the Home Secretary warned the Committee and myself personally of the danger of a Subsection of this character. He was trying to be sweetly reasonable. Speaking with a good deal of knowledge of the machinery of Fascism I say that there is a great danger of providing a serious loophole for the drilling of semi-military organisations in the Sub-section as now drafted, and it seems to me that the simplest way is to omit the word "organisation." If that were done our difficulties would be met. I am satisfied that if the Sub-section is left in its present form the very thing which we want to prevent will go on in probably just as aggressive a form as at present, and the necessity for providing stewards to prevent interruption at meetings will be made the justification and excuse for drilling and organising their members in a martial way and still irritate the public. I hope the Attorney-General will be as sweetly reasonable on the Report stage as the Home Secretary was in the Committee stage, and will be careful that the purpose of the Clause is not defeated by his own Amendment.

5.39.

Mr. EDE: I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful to the Attorney-

General for the way in which he has met us on this matter, and I hope that the word "organisation" will not appear in the Clause in its final form. It seems to me that it will be possible for someone to organise a body of professional stewards with no definite political attachment and to announce that any party could have the benefit of this corps of well instructed and organised stewards. I had the experience of having a visit from Sir Oswald Mosley to my constituency during the General Election. He did not put up a candidate, but he chose the opportunity of coming down one Sunday evening to a meeting he had organised, and he brought a large number of stewards from places over 100 miles away in chars-a-bane. Quite obviously they were imported nominally for the purpose of being stewards but really for the purpose of creating terror and, if necessary, of behaving in quite an illegal way.
I hope some such words as have been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) will find favour with the Government. No one desires to prohibit the employment of a reasonable number of stewards at a meeting, but one does rather fear what may happen if we get on every side in politics an organised body of people who will be specially trained. It would be difficult to prevent the creation of a private army. The word "equipment" also is a tremendous word to apply to a small badge which might be worn in the buttonhole or as an armlet, and I suggest that it might be possible to find a word which does not represent something quite as big as the word "equipment" suggests.

Major MILNER: Identification.

Mr. EDE: My hon. and gallant Friend suggests the word "identification." The word "equipment" seems to me to include something which might be useful as a weapon of defence if not of offence. The word "identification" would remove the possibility of it being something formidable. I hope the Attorney-General will realise that we have endeavoured to be reasonable and that the Government will meet the legitimate points which have been raised.

5.45 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: The charming little cautionary tale, told us both by the


Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, of the poor little boy in an apple tree does not seem to me to meet this case. It seems to me that the Attorney-General suggested that a steward may do almost anything to a heckler except kill him. In the tale of the little boy in the apple tree, the little boy was only eating the apple, and used no violence; but in the cases with which we are dealing there might be an argument put before the magistrate that the greater the violence the greater the justification for the violence used by the stewards. To take another illustration with which we are all familiar, after a baton charge, the police always invariably prosecute the men who are injured as an excuse for their own violence. I am afraid there might be a situation in which the stewards used excessive violence—as was the case at Olympia, for instance—and it might be argued afterwards that the violence was necessary and lawful because of the resistance offered. I do not think the words in this Sub-section meet the point we are trying to settle.
In my opinion, this particular Subsection, if it is allowed to stand, will give away all the underlying agreement that there has been on this Bill. The justification that Sir Oswald Mosley has always made for his armed bands and uniformed bullies is that they are necessary to keep order at public meetings. It is horrifying to find used in this Sub-section the words "to be employed as stewards," for the plain meaning of those words is that the stewards would be paid. If they can be paid, if the Attorney-General defends the use, not of ad hoc stewards --who would have no difficulty in getting into any meeting--but of stewards who, as the Attorney-General said, cannot and must not be prevented from going from place to place, and if they have a distinguishing mark, then there is nothing to prevent them from being moved about the country as a body, wearing some distinguishing mark, and being paid. What would distinguish them from a small, highly organised army?
I listened to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) speaking about heckling. The Noble Lord seems to be used to going round the country addressing meetings of the Primrose League, where they listen to every word

he says in awed silence. There seems to be an idea the other side of the House that those of us on the Left are not heckled, but let hon. Members come to some of our meetings in the country and they will see. Those are the things on which we and our movement live. The tender and delicate Noble Lord from Horsham must not even be interrupted, and is so annoyed when he is interrupted —which we regard as the normal state of. affairs—that he thinks he must have a private army in order to protect himself. The Noble Lord needs a little political education in the rough-and-tumble of industrial seats, and not in the highly select and cloistered shades of Horsham.
In this Sub-section the whole thing is given away in an extremely underhand manner. There are some hon. Members who profoundly disagree with this Bill from beginning to end, except on the one thing that it prohibits a drilled and paid private army. This Sub-section allows a drilled and paid, though small but highly organised, private army of bullies to be brought in, and I accuse the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General of having given way on this matter to the extremists on their own side. If we allow this Sub-section to pass, the whole principle of the Bill will be violated.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: My obfect in rising is to see whether this particular Amendment does not go rather further than is needed. Most hon. Members are agreed that disorder of a provocative kind should. The words of the Sub-section are:
the organization of a reasonable number of persons to be employed as stewards.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to my comparatively simple mind that those words might permit of the training of a body of stewards who would go round to meetings as the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson) suggested. I should have thought that one could use the words "the employment of a reason able number of stewards," without having the words:
the organization…of persons to be employed.
Again, at the end of the Sub-section there are the words:
or their equipment with badges.


As a Member of the Tory party, I do not like the word "equipment" when used in connection with ordinary public meetings and ordinary life. I would prefer to have some simple words such as "the use of badges or distinguishing marks." The word "equipment" is the sort of word that the ardent militant supporters of the League of Nations are always using, and always trying to put into a Bill whenever and wherever they can; but a mere Tory, such as myself, would rather have some simple English words. I would like the Sub-section to be drafted in the simplest possible English that would make it plain that we do not mind the ordinary use of stewards at meetings, but that we will not have organised gangs of stewards taken round from place to place. If there is to be an organised body of people, let it be the police; but let the stewards be people who live in and close to the locality and who, in my experience, are the best people to keep order. On these questions it is wise that we should try to put the matter simply and plainly, and riot introduce into a Bill of this nature anything which may give it a provocative meaning or encourage the use of anything except the simplest form of stewards.

5.54 p.m

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) that we should use as simple language as possible in this Sub-section. It seems to me that we have not yet arrived at a satisfactory form of words. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggested a form of words which was aimed in the right direction, but which went too far in his own way. He ruled out the use of the word "organisation" altogether. That would be very dangerous, since it might mean that one could not talk to the stewards beforehand—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I would remind the hon. Member that I left in the words
or the instructions of those persons in their lawful duties as such stewards.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I think there would still be some danger in making it entirely impossible to have stewards who would be employed for a period and over a district, and who would know what were their duties. I think the form of words suggested by the hon. and learned

Gentleman goes further than he would desire. Our aim is to prohibit private armies, and as soon as we try to put into words what we will allow in the way of stewards, it becomes a matter of very delicate balancing of the words that are used. I cannot help feeling that neither the words proposed by the Home Secretary nor those suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol are exactly right. I hope the Government will very earnestly follow up the suggestion made by the Attorney-General and consider whether they cannot produce, in another place, some form of words which will prohibit private armies, but will not leave an opening for attacking the ordinary and legitimate use of stewards, which we have known in this country for a very long time and with which nobody disagrees.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the requests that have been made in all parts of the House and promise to modify the Sub-section. It is obvious that hon. Members in all parts of the House would prefer not to divide on this matter, and I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman can promise a modification in the direction suggested.

5.58 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. I think the discussion has shown that the House as a whole wants a provision concerning stewards and recognises that we are trying to put it in the right form. I thought the observations made by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) contained a great deal of common sense. The hon. Member suggested that lawyers prefer long and difficult words to short and plain ones, but I would point out that the best lawyer is the man who states a proposition in the very simplest terms. It may be that in this case we have not achieved the purpose exactly. I must make it entirely plain that I think it is impossible for the Sub-section to provide that in arranging for stewards at meetings all over a constituency, there must not be the same stewards. That would be impossible and contrary to common sense. On the other hand, one cannot permit—to use the sort of phrase that has been employed in the Debate—imported private armies and all


the rest of it. The whole question, therefore, is to find exactly the right phrasing. I am willing to admit at once that the Debate has shown that this object is not being exaggerated. I am glad that there is no danger of dividing on this matter, and if the House will agree to accept this Sub-section for the time being, I shall be ready to give an assurance that this matter will be looked at in the light of this discussion on both sides of the House, and that there shall he, to the very best of our ability, a trimming-up of this Sub-section which would seem to meet the general will of the House.
I would like to be allowed to make one other observation as a matter of correction, and I do so because of the kind reference made to me by the hon. Lady the Member for Jarrow (Miss Wilkinson). The cautionary tale which I recounted from memory, and which was subsequently reproduced in a high authority by the Attorney-General, was not entirely accurate. I do not believe there was an apple tree—the trespassers were trespassing along the ground.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir W. Davison: In page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert:
and conditions forbidding or restricting the display of banners, flags, or emblems.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): It was not proposed to select the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). I understand, however, that the hon. Member is desirous of explaining his proposal with a view to showing that it is necessary in relation to the Amendment which stands next on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary—in page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners, or emblems shall be imposed under this Sub-section except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
Before deciding finally not to accept the hon. Member's Amendment I am prepared to hear his explanation.

6.1 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: My submission is that a proviso such as that to be proposed by the Home Secretary would not be appropriate to the words of the Sub-section authorising the police in certain circumstances to give directions imposing conditions, including tertian specified conditions. In Committee I moved an Amendment in terms similar to that which is now on the Paper, and the Home Secretary then said he was prepared to accept an Amendment of that kind, but that my wording was rather too strong as it referred to conditions "prohibiting" the display of banners and emblems likely to cause a risk of a breach of the peace. The Home Secretary said he would prefer to introduce the word "restriction" and also the addition of the word "flags" and I was prepared to accept such an Amendment. The Home Secretary's suggested words were:
the conditions for prohibiting or restricting the display of flags, banners and emblems."—[OrnetAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1936; col. 153, Vol. 318.]
I think the words of the Amendment which I have on the Paper are perfectly consonant with the words which the Home Secretary proposed to insert, and that among the conditions referred to in the Clause should be included conditions restricting the display of banners, flags or emblems.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not satisfied me that his Amendment ought to be selected. He has just used the words "included in the conditions" which show that his Amendment is not of such a nature that the decision already come to not to select it ought to be changed. The matter can be dealt with on the Home Secretary's Amendment and the hon. Member will realise that there is power in this Subsection to impose such conditions, without limitation, as appear necessary for the preservation of order.

Sir W. DAVISON: May I remind you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, of the point which was made at an earlier stage by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Midlothian (Captain Ramsay) that this Bill seemed directed entirely to the question of uniforms, and that some words ought to be introduced drawing attention to the question of banners and emblems.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member will find that that is included in and can be dealt with on the next Amendment.

6.4 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 13, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners or emblems shall be imposed under this sub-section except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington will see that, although I am not following the method which he considers to be the right method, there are very good reasons for dealing with this matter in the manner which we suggest. I ask hon. Members first to look at the words in Sub-section (1). It provides that the chief officer of police may in certain circumstances give directions imposing on the persons organising or taking part in a procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order. If those words are left as they stand there is no doubt that they would include, in a proper case, the imposing of conditions as regards the display of flags, because it is possible to conceive a case in which such a condition would be necessary for the preservation of public order. But the main purpose of the Sub-section is to define the power and the method by which the police authorities may deal with the route to be taken by a procession, and by which they may provide what streets or public places are to be kept free. That is the main object, and it would he wrong to regard the main object of the provision as though it stood on the same level as conditions which are essentially of a subordinate kind.

Mr. E. J.WILLIAMS: Do these powers not exist now?

Sir J. SIMON: That point was fully dealt with in Committee. The powers differ in London and in the Provinces and in Scotland and we are trying here to bring them together as has already been explained. While it is plain that this condition as to flags, banners and emblems is one of the conditions which might, in a proper case, be imposed, nobody proposes that it should be done as a matter of course and in all cases. A procession must go down a road some-

where, and it must, in case of need, be directed or shepherded, but the other thing is incidental. Therefore it seems right not to deal with it in the manner proposed by my hon. Friend but to provide that no conditions restricting the display of flags, banners or emblems shall be imposed except such as are found to be reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace. We must recognise that we cannot permit the use of these things in a manner which is going to cause a, risk of a breach of the peace, and this proviso is a recognition of the fact that it is within the power of the police, in a proper case, to impose such conditions. At the same time it is made clear that it is only to be done where it is necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
I am satisfied that the police authorities, with this indication, will carry out what I believe to be the desire of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. My hon. friend the Member for South Kensington has usefully drawn attention to this matter by asking that it should be made plain on the face of the Bill. I submit that it is made plain on the face of the Bill, and that nobody can say that this is not one of the things about which conditions can be imposed. I am sure my hon. Friend does not want the condition imposed unless it is reasonably necessary to prevent a breach of the peace, and if it is reasonably necessary, then the proper 'condition should be imposed. I hope the House will feel that we are dealing with this matter fairly and that there will be general agreement on this Amendment.

Captain RAMSAY: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for this Amendment, which is in pursuance of a promise given to some of my hon. Friends and myself on 23rd November. I should also like to explain that we put down the further Amendment to which reference has already been made, in order to get from my right hon. Friend a statement such as he has made and an assurance on a matter which we regard as of considerable importance, although I agree that it is not the major part of the problem with which we have to deal.

6.10 p.m.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Under the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, will the police, of necessity, take action to


prevent banners with objectionable mottoes and slogans on them being carried, or will the police have to consider, as regards particular emblems or mottoes whether or not in the particular circumstances of the case these ought to be carried? Will the police be able to say in a particular case, "It does not matter whether these eople carry objectionable mottoes or not," or does this mean that of necessity the police in every case will prevent any objectionable motto being carried? Are the police only to exercise their powers where they think that the display of an objectionable motto is likely to cause a breach of the peace? That is very important from my point of view.

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. and gallant Friend will remember that we are coming, shortly I hope, to Clause 5, which lays down positively that any person who in any public place uses insulting behaviour whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned shall he guilty of an offence. Could anything be more offensive than the flaunting of an emblem, whatever it might be, in a manner which would fall within terms of that Clause? The only point on which I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend is that for the moment he seems to assume that things which are objectionable to one person are necessarily objectionable to all the world. It is not so. It is astonishing how many people find things soothing and comfortable which others regard as highly objectionable. I think that the provision which we are making in regard to the police in Clause 3, combined with the positive provision in Clause 5, will meet the case.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the House that we are not now in Committee. The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a question and although the Home Secretary had already spoken, I permitted him to reply, but I cannot allow the matter to be discussed as if the House were in Committee.

6.13 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I, of course, accept what the Home Secretary says and with his explanation, given in the hearing of the hon. Members who are present, I think the proviso is satisfactory. I am bound to point out however that the main

criticism of this Bill among the public is that it deals with one class of persons only, that is to say, the Fascist organisation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not deal with the Bill as a whole.

Sir W.DAVISON: I was about to point out the desirability that this criticism against the Bill ought to be met more definitely than it appears to be met by this proviso. It seems to me unfortunate that there should merely be a proviso in the Bill to the effect that no conditions restricting flags, banners or emblems are to be imposed except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace. I entirely agree with that, but I think it would have been much more effective and would have met objections to the Bill better, had words been inserted laying this down as one of the conditions and indicating that this was one of the things aimed at in the Bill. However, in view of the words which the Home Secretary has addressed to the House and which I hope will be fully reported, we may take it that anything which leads to a breach of the peace, whether in the nature of uniforms, banners or emblems, is what is aimed at by this Bill and that it is not confined to one organisation, Fascist or any other but extends to all organisations whose banners, uniforms or emblems are likely to lead to a breach of the peace.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I think this is a very dangerous Sub-section. It is all very well for our friends in Kensington, Paddington, and such places to look upon this proviso with suspicion from one side, but I look at it with suspicion from the other side. I look at it from the Doncaster side. What would prevent risk of a breach of the peace in Paddington would not prevent such risk in Doncaster or Hemsworth. It is quite possible that a certain banner in Yorkshire, with the photograph of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in the centre, being in a procession up to Doncaster racecourse, where a lot of farmers live just around. They would say, "There is going to be a breach of the peace," and they might go for the banner and pull it down, because they feel that the hon. Member for Don Valley stands for the agricultural workers against the farmers. My own miners' branch might possibly be


in a political procession and carry a banner with the words, "Six hours' work, six hours' sleep, six hours' leisure, and 16 bob a day." The coalowners might see it and say, "We cannot stand for that," and the police might say, "Your branch is not taking that banner in the procession." I hope the Home Secretary can see my point of view as well as that of Paddington and Kensington. I feel that this Amendment is going too far and that what the police might do in one district they might do the direct opposite of in another. If this proviso is inserted in the Bill, I shudder to think what the ultimate result in the country may be.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I hope I shall not use provocative language to the very distinguished lawyers opposite, but really this, while a highly meritorious proviso, is extremely bad drafting, because the conditions that may be imposed are mostly the conditions that appear necessary to the police for the preservation of public order, though certain of the conditions are not to be imposed unless they are reasonably necessary to prevent a breach of the peace. There are two very considerable distinctions. You divide up your conditions into two classes, in one of which the police alone are the judge of whether or not they are necessary and in the other of which the court may in certain events become the judge of whether or not they are necessary. That may be right and proper, but then you get the curious reflex action that you often get in construing a Statute, that if you put that proviso in, it will amount to an express indication that the court are entitled to impose conditions about anything else in the world although they know they are not reasonably necessary to prevent a breach of the peace.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: It occurs to me that perhaps the proviso is so worded as to be wider than is really intended. I refer to the words "risk of." If the proviso were to the effect that no conditions restricting the display of flags and so on should be imposed except such as were reasonably necessary to prevent a breach of the peace, it would perhaps meet the case, but if the powers of the police are to go so far as to give them the right to

interfere with anything which does not necessarily or which may not reasonably lead to a breach of the peace, but which may involve any risk of a breach of the peace, then it is very difficult to see any kind of banner or emblem or demonstration at all in regard to which the police might not reasonably say, "Well, we do not think there will be any breach of the peace or that it is even probable, but there is a risk of it, one chance in a thousand, and, therefore, we are entitled to prevent it." It seems to me that if the proviso remains drafted in that way, it might just as well never have been moved at all, because the whole purpose, as I understand it, of adding it is to prevent the police from interfering where it, is not reasonably necessary. If you leave the proviso as it is now worded, you take away with one hand what you have previously given with the other. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the proviso would meet every purpose which he had in mind if the words "risk of" were deleted.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I hope that some Member of the Government will meet the point which has just been made. I think the alteration suggested is very reasonable, because the proviso goes much too far in every way. if the alteration were made by taking out the words "risk of," it would prevent a lot of trouble in the future, and it would be only fair to the courts which might have to deal with this matter that those words should be omitted. After all, there is the word "reasonably" and what is conveyed by that word earlier in this Sub-section, and I think that is all that is necessary.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: May I add a word in support of the suggestion made by the two previous speakers? If these words are left in, it looks as if one would be putting in every word that could possibly entitle and encourage the police to act, whereas that is not really the intention of the Clause at all. It looks as if you were allowing the police to make what is a very flimsy excuse a good one, and I do not think we should desire to encourage that. I respectfully agree with the two previous speakers that if you took these two words out, the proviso would have all that anybody would think necessary.

6.25 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The observations of the last speaker suggest that the language employed in this proviso may encourage or at least authorise the police to make an unnecessarily wide use of this power, and the suggestion, I understand, is to delete the words "risk of." Quite frankly, I am a little reluctant, without the opportunity for consideration, to say anything very definite as regards a matter of drafting, particularly in relation to a topic which has given rise to such a large number of varying views. I should like to point out, however, to hon. Members that what we are talking about in the last line of this proviso is a condition. The proviso reads:
…no conditions … shall be imposed … except such as are reasonably necessary to prevent risk of a breach of the peace.
It occurs to me that it is a little difficult to talk about conditions preventing a breach of the peace and that all that a condition can do is to prevent risk of a breach of the peace. But I do not wish to be held to be accepting that view finally, and my right' hon. Friend and I will look further into this matter, in the light of the observations that have been made, in order to see whether we can devise a better formula to meet the views that have been expressed.

Amendment agreed to.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 14, to leave out "is of opinion," and to insert "has reasonable ground for apprehending."
The matter can best be explained by reminding the House of how the Bill originally stood and now stands in Subsection (1) and comparing it with Subsection (2). In the former Sub-section the Bill, as originally drafted, gave the chief officer of police the right to control, restrict, and what is called route a procession if he were of the opinion that the procession might cause disorder, and at a request made from this side and from below the Gangway the small but important alteration of putting "reasonable ground for apprehending," instead of "is of opinion," was adopted by the Government, professedly to meet the point of hon. Members who said that it ought to be theoretically possible, and in certain cases practically possible, to

challenge the exercise of this power in the courts, which are the places, for better or for worse, in which Englishmen do challenge the exercise of such powers of restricting political liberty. I do not want the Government to think that when we seek to do the same thing in Subsection (2) we are only doing it at this stage of the Bill because they have made a concession in Committee, because in fact it was only through the accidental loss of a piece of paper that we did not bring the same matter forward in Committee with regard to Sub-section (2).
There is, of course, a very real distinction between the two Sub-sections. In Sub-section (1), as drafted, there was nothing between the police and the restriction of your liberty, and what has been done has been to put in the safeguard of a possible appeal to the courts between the police desiring to restrict your procession and the police actually restricting your procession. Under Subsection (2) there is, of course, intervening between the desire of the police and the banning of processions the restriction that he must get the council of the borough or district to agree with him and to get also the Secretary of State to agree with him, but there remains the absence of any right to appeal to a court. If the powers under Sub-section (2) are exercised and we get a Tory chief constable acting with a Tory council, or, on the other hand, a sympathetic chief constable acting with a Labour council—there is no impossibility in that—they may ban processions and the Secretary of State, of course, has to consent, but there are large periods of the year when the Secretary of State cannot be challenged in Parliament because it is not sitting. In any case, some Home Secretaries—I do not suggest it of this one—are capable of answering a question in a way that is no answer at all, having had a great deal of training in that respect by long office. I submit, therefore, that it is desirable that the appeal to the court should be retained in this instance as well as in the other.
It is not very often that such a right of carrying the matter to the court will be exercised, but it is a commonplace among lawyers that there are innumerable powers that are never exercised and yet their existence makes the people against whom they might be exercised a great deal more careful in their activities. We


might get a state of society—there certainly are some districts—in which there are no burglaries, but that is no reason for not having a law against burglaries. In the same way if the chief officer of police in a difficult district—and sometimes they are made difficult by chief officers of police—has in front of him all the time the fact that he has not only to satisfy a borough council that may be prone to take anything he says as gospel and that he has to satisfy the Home Secretary whom he has discovered by previous experience hates processions; and if he remembers all the time that he may have to justify himself in a court in a civil action against him for trespass or assault it may lead to a more reasonable administration of this Clause.

6.34 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and learned Member has urged this Amendment on the ground that it is necessary in Sub-section (2) of this Clause, as in Sub-section (1), to impose upon the chief officer of police the duty not merely of being of opinion that certain steps should be taken, but also of having reasonable ground for apprehending that certain risks may be encountered. A wide distinction falls to be drawn in this respect between the two Sub-sections. Under Sub-section (1) the chief officer of police, having arrived at a certain conclusion, and having had reasonable ground for doing so, takes immediate action, which has an instant effect upon other parties. It was for that reason, after discussion in the Committee, that the requirement was inserted that the chief officer of police should not be able, as it were, to issue a fiat on the matter, and should be under the requirement of acting judicially and having evidence for the conclusion at which he arrives. In Sub-section (2), as I pointed out on the Committee stage, the only duty upon the chief officer of police is to set the ball rolling, to set in operation a chain of machinery under which there will be ample checks and balances to see that right action is taken. He has to ask the borough or the urban district council to take action, and even if the council think that there is any good ground for taking action nothing happens unless the action receives the imprimatur of the approval of the Secretary of State.
The hon. and learned Member suggested that one cannot trust some boroughs and urban district councils, or even some Secretaries of State, but, while appreciating the tone in which that criticism was made, I would suggest seriously to the House that the mechanism which is afforded in this Subsection must be regarded as a mechanism to be put into operation in a judicial spirit by the local authorities who are answerable to their constituents, subject to the confirmation in the last resort by the Secretary of State, who is answerable to this House. It is really beside the point to attempt to add to all that the additional precaution of an appeal to the court. I would like to press upon the House this further consideration. I am not sure at precisely what stage or how the hon. and learned Gentleman would propose an appeal to the court, but it would have the effect of producing one of those consequences which at all stages in the consideration of this Bill hon. Members have been anxious to avoid, namely, the introduction of conditions and safeguards which would merely result in paralysing the responsible authorities and preventing effective and immediate action being taken in the type of emergency with which this Subsection is intended to deal. Hon. Members will know from a recollection of the events during October the situation with which this Sub-section is intended to deal, and I feel that the adoption of the Amendment in this instance would have the very deplorable and undesirable effect of paralysing the responsible authorities at a time when prompt and effective action was desirable. There is a vital distinction between the two Sub-sections, and I suggest that all the legitimate interests which require protection are adequately protected by Sub-section (2) as it stands.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am surprised at the refusal of the Lord Advocate to accept the Amendment and I do not think that his reasons are satisfactory. He pointed out that the council would have to be consulted and the imprimatur of the 'Secretary of State obtained, and that they would have to apply judicial minds to the application by the chief constable. He evidently felt, however, that if the chief constable also exercised a judicial mind it would play "the dickens" with


the whole Sub-section. In his attitude the Lord Advocate is exercising far too much Scottish caution; he is being thriftier than he has any reason to be. Surely the chief constable will not act unless he has reasonable apprehension. What will make him "of opinion" except reasonable apprehension? I do not see a great difference between the chief constable forming an opinion and being reasonably apprehensive. The words of the Amendment would have the effect, which the present words will not have, of making the chief constable realise that he has only to take action after giving proper consideration and after exercising deliberate judgment, rather than to take action impulsively.
I was sorry that the hon. and learned Member who moved the Amendment made the suggestion of an appeal to the court, for he seems to have terrified the Lord Advocate that there is some machinery that will be produced afterwards and will make this Sub-section almost inoperative. He did not know at what stage it would be necessary to go to court, but the fact that it was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member evidently produced an extreme -terror in the simple Scottish mind of the Lord Advocate. Some of us do not like the Clause at all and would feel more comfortable if the Amendment were made, as it was in the previous Sub-section. I suggest that the Lord Advocate should take more time to think about it and that, if he is a little afraid of forming an opinion now and is reasonably apprehensive that there is more in the Amendment than appears to be the case, he will promise to give further consideration to it.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment or something like it, for it is a necessary safeguard. The Lord Advocate said that there were ample checks in the Subsection. Having studied it with care on this stage and on the Committee stage, I have failed to discover them. Let us remember that by this Sub-section (2) we are conferring very wide powers to control processions, far wider than any which have been given before. The Lord Advocate spoke of these powers being used in a state of emergency, but they are not just emergency powers; they are powers to impose what may be, in effect,

a permanent ban on this particular form of demonstration in the district concerned.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I would ask the hon. Member to keep in view that these powers can be used only if the powers given in Sub-section (1) are not sufficient to prevent the public disorder. It was in that sense only that, I was using the word "emergency."

Mr. FOOT: Surely that begs the whole question. The question is who is to decide whether the powers in Subsection (1) are sufficient, and as the Clause now stands the chief officer of the police is made the sole judge. There may be, in fact, no substantial grounds whatever for his view, but if he can get the assent of his council, and afterwards the assent of the Secretary of State, it is impossible to challenge his action in any way. We are told that we have the one safeguard of being able to challenge the Secretary of State in this House. I cannot see why we should not have two. safeguards, and I respectfully submit that the safeguard of an appeal to the courts is in a large number of cases a very much more effective one than the safeguard of being able to ask questions of a Minister in this House. The people directly concerned with organising the procession cannot possibly be heard in this House, and it is often very difficult, certainly in a Debate on the Adjournment, for all the relevant considerations to be brought before the Home Secretary; and one thing which is certain is that when matters which raise considerable political heat are brought forward the Home Secretary does not consider them in a judicial manner on the Floor of this House.
I have put down an Amendment designed to strengthen the Parliamentary safeguard by making it possible for this House, by a vote within 21 days, to overturn a ban imposed under this Sub-section, but even if that Amendment were accepted by the Government it would not be a complete safeguard, because in this House votes very often go on party lines, and we might have the Home Secretary of the day adopting the maxim of Lord Balfour and saying that he had a thoroughly bad case and therefore must apply his majority to it.
It does not alarm me at all that the court might be called in after the Home


Secretary had given his decision. I should not have thought there was anything unusual about that, because I think it happens in various ways on a large number of occasions. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, he will see that an Order may be made by the Minister of Agriculture and confirmed by a vote of this House, and that even after that it is possible to go to the courts and test its validity. If it is right and proper for the courts to overturn an Order after it has been made by this House, surely there is nothing wrong in saying that they can set aside an Order when it has simply been approved by a Secretary of State.

6.50 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate will again consider this matter. He has himself given the reason why it should be considered with the greatest care, because he has pointed out that Sub-section (2) is intended to operate only in circumstances of great gravity. That makes it all the more important that its operation should be completely correct. It is, indeed, a question of the protection of minorities, because this Clause will undoubtedly be operated by the majority against the minority in times of great political excitement. In those circumstances it shows a complete lack of realism to suggest that either local authorities or Secretaries of State are going to look at these matters with what Lord Halsbury once called "The icy impartiality of a Rhadamanthus." They are going to look at them through the coloured spectacles of their political beliefs, and it is quite clear that where there is great excitement, say, between Socialists and Conservatives, and either of them desire to use the method of demonstration in order to bring their desires before the mass of the people, and there is a local council which is of one colour or the other, that we shall not get an unbiassed judgment on the problem. And if the Secretary of State, who must be of one colour or the other, is challenged in this House, on the Adjournment or at some other time, he will necessarily argue the matter in the way in which it is always argued, and that is upon party lines; and if no recourse can be had to the impartial

tribunal of the courts there is a grave danger that the originating motive of this machinery may be misused.
It will be noticed that the question on which the opinion of the chief officer of the police is to be taken is whether the powers conferred upon him by the last foregoing Sub-section will or will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in the borough. Supposing a chief of the police, who is trusted by the borough, presumably, or he would not be there, comes forward and says, "I am of opinion that I cannot deal with the present circumstances under Section 3 (1) of the Public Order Act and therefore I must ask you to operate Section 3 (2).'' Assume, too, that he does that on an insufficient reason or for a partisan reason; because it is only in such circumstances that protection is required. In that event it is almost certain that the local council, he being a trusted servant and adviser, will have to accept his expert advice as to whether or not they operate under Section 3 (1) or 3 (2). The matter will then go forward to the Secretary of State, and what Secretary of State will risk having riots in the district because he has turned down the advice of the local council and of the chief constable? Anybody who has an atom of humanity and care for his position would naturally adopt the motto "Safety first." He cannot get into trouble if he imposes the Order, because that is going to stop any rioting, and he will say that it is much safer to impose the order than risk what the chief constable and the borough council tell him may happen if he does not, and that is rioting or breaches of the peace.
The whole tendency in the operation of all these Sub-sections—and I, personally, have a great objection to Sub-section (3) —will be to operate them from the point of view of making certain of the "safety first" point of view. The difficulty. will not be to get the authorities to put these Sub-sections into operation, but to prevent them from operating them unnecessarily. Therefore, I suggest that this is a case where, as we are dealing with the protection of minorities in times of grave political feeling, it is not sufficient to give merely political protection, because that is all that is being given


under this Clause. Something more is required, and the only way by which that something more can satisfactorily be given is to give the right of challenge in the courts after the event. Such right of challenge exists now in respect of Housing Orders, made on the recommendation of a medical officer of health, and matters of that kind. The right is hardly ever exercised; I think there has been one case in which a recommendation was challenged as not having been made on a proper basis. All the Amendment would give would be the right to challenge the operation of these Orders subsequently on the ground that they had not been originated on a proper basis, that the chief constable had riot acted within his jurisdiction in operating this machinery. The likelihood of that being successful in any case may be said to be extremely remote, and I agree that it is very remote, and nobody would want action under this Sub-section to be constantly challenged; but the fact that the right to challenge existed would, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) said, be a continual warning to the authorities. Such a warning would be of the greatest value in cases of this kind, and the over-riding right to go to the courts in a case where there has been an abuse of power by the chief constable, or an abuse of the exercise of his opinion, is something which I believe is essentially a right, if we are to impose such wide powers of stopping essential rights of minorities. I, therefore, ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to reconsider his decision.

6.57 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I venture with some trepidation upon this battle-ground of lawyers, and I do not pretend for a moment to be able to deal with this matter with "the icy impartiality of a Rhadamanthus." [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] I will refer hon. Menibers to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). What I do say is that I hope the House will deal with this matter on the basis of common sense. We have heard a number of ingenious legal arguments, to which, no doubt, hon. Members will pay due attention, but I ask the House to remember what is the

purpose of this Sub-section. Its purpose is that in certain exceptional circumstances where there is grave danger of serious breaches of the peace in particular districts the authorities shall be able to take steps to prevent that danger occurring, and the provisions are designed to allow that action to be taken with reasonable promptness while at the same time giving as many safeguards as can be reasonably provided against the unreasonable use of that power. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that the effect of this Amendment would be to make it easier to challenge such action in the courts. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Possible to do so ! "] Well, I think there is a difference of opinion among lawyers on that point. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No !"] I understand that there is.

Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Gentleman explain to us how, as the Clause stands, it would be possible to challenge it in the courts?

Mr. LLOYD: I will not press this point any further. I understand that there is some doubt. I would put it to the House that we do not want to place the authorities in the position that when a danger is threatened their action may be held up by an organisation, which may be itself desirous of taking part in the disorder, briefing ingenious counsel in order to hold up the action of the authorities.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it can be held up? There is nothing in this Amendment which would make it possible for it to be held up. It could be delayed. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how it could possibly be held
up?

Mr. LLOYD: By, I am advised, an injunction. [HON. MEMBERS: "No ! "] I am informed by high legal authority that that is the case. This is the point I wish to make. I do not think that the House would wish to cripple the effective use of this power on the occasion when it is needed. This has to go before the local authority and then the Secretary of State, who is responsible to this House, and I venture to submit, as a layman, that the safeguards, on a commonsense basis, are adequate.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. SILVERMAN: With all respect, I hardly think that the hon. Member has met the case which has been put forward


on behalf of this Amendment. I suggest to him that his first instincts were right when he suggested that the purpose of the Amendment was to make challenge easier, because obviously that phrase when he used it meant that there was in his mind the feeling that there ought to be some right of challenge even if the right of challenge ought not to be too easy. It has been suggested and I have not heard it contradicted, that in the Clause as it stands there is no right of challenge, and all that is pleaded for in this Amendment is not that there shall be a right to challenge before the fact so as to paralyse the executive in putting the law into operation; what is suggested by the Amendment—and if the form of words goes beyond this, I am sure that my hon. Friend would say that he is not tied to any form of words—is merely that in case at some time, somewhere, by someone the power under the Clause is wrongly used there shall afterwards be the power to go to the court to have it determined whether the officer, the council and the Minister had used powers arbitrarily which were really intended by Parliament to be used reasonably. I suggest that if this matter be reconsidered from that point of view it will be seen that the addition of some words making it clear that the chief constable shall not, in setting the machinery in motion which results in a complete ban, act without reasonable apprehension. The effect of the Clause is to take away from a minority in a particular district the power to employ at all one of the most effective means of political propaganda, and it is not unreasonable to say that he ought not to be the sole judge whether the powers in the previous Sub-section are insufficient, or, if he is indeed the sole judge, that, acting as the sole judge, he shall act reasonably.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I seriously suggest to the Lord Advocate that he has not met the case that has been made on this side of the House. I have a lively recollection of what happened in the Committee stage, and we were hoping that on the Report stage our objections would be met. I have a lively recollection of the speech made in this regard by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton), who pointed out that one of the difficulties of applying this Clause was

that if you ban any political procession you would have to ban all, or yon would be exposed to a charge of discrimination in respect of one party as against another. I think the House has to admit that that is so. Under the Clause it would be impossible to get a borough or the Home Secretary to ban a Fascist or a Communist demonstration and permit a Conservative or a Socialist demonstration to take place. We are putting into the hands of the police power to ban all demonstrations, and that power is to be used because some people have been behaving unreasonably, so that lawless and subversive elements could behave in such a way as to deprive people of demonstrating in a lawful way. If this Clause merely had the effect of banning demonstrations of unlawful and subversive people then it might perhaps not be so dangerous, although there might be some discussion about whether these people were acting undesirably. But, unfortunately, this extends it to all political demonstrations in that borough, and we have to watch the powers conferred on the police very carefully.
It is one of the weaknesses as well as the strength of our Constitution, as distinct from the United States, for example, where the courts act as guardians of the liberties of the people as against the legislature, that, here the Legislature is supreme. Nevertheless, although that condition exists here, we know very well that in times of excited political feeling elected persons are not the proper custodians of the liberties of minorities, and therefore it is desirable that as far as the courts can be strengthened under our Constitution as guardians of the rights of minorities they should be strengthened, whereas this Clause puts a novel power in the hands of the pclice with, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out, the only safeguard of the elected persons against whom the demonstrations are going to take place. In circumstances of that kind the House ought to accept the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt).
There is one further consideration which I wish to advance. In Committee the words that are now suggested for Sub-section (2) were included in Subsection (1). Sub-section (1) read in the


same way regarding the powers of the police as Sub-section (2) reads now. But the Committee were so seized with the importance of limiting the powers of the police in this matter that they imported the words of this Amendment into Subsection (1). What, therefore, is the result 2 I have had some experience of discussing the conditions of demonstrations with the officials of Scotland Yard, and I am bound to say that the powers conferred on the police under Subsection (1) if exercised with any imagination, are quite sufficient to frustrate any demonstration we might have in London. If the original route laid down by Scotland Yard for our last demonstration to Hyde Park had been followed, our East End contingent would have reached the Park at half-past eight at night. They would have led us all round the most tortuous by-ways of the City in order, they said, that we should not enter on the main roads because of the traffic. I suspect that there was little involved in respect of traffic on a Sunday afternoon, but unless we had resisted them most robustly they would have been able, under existing powers, by raising the question of traffic, to have frustrated the demonstration.
Under Sub-section (1) they can be challenged in the courts. It is possible if they exercise their powers unreasonably for them to be challenged. If, therefore, they can be challenged under Sub-section (1), where the powers are moderate and are deliberately made moderate in the hope that the exercise of these powers alone will obviate the dangers which the Bill apprehends, and there is no challenge under Sub-section (2), there is a temptation for the police to skip Subsection (1), where they can be challenged, and exercise the powers of Sub-section (2). The importing of the words into Sub-section (1) has increased the danger of Sub-section (2), because if that Amendment had not been accepted the police could not be challenged, and they would try to meet difficulties by exercising their powers under Sub-section (1). But as Sub-section (1) can be challenged in the courts, a chief constable need not try it and can go at once to Sub-section (2).
Members on the other side of the House as well as Members on this side are

custodians of the liberties of the subject, and we ought not to give to the police powers which are novel and which put the liberty of the subject completely at their mercy. If it had been said that the powers under Sub-section (2) could only be exercised after the powers under Subsection (1) had demonstrably failed, then, perhaps, these powers could be given to the police, but there is nothing in the language of the Bill which insists that the police shall first try Sub-section (1) and then go to Sub-section (2). The Bill makes it clear that the police can act under either one or the other. If the police are up against unknown legal difficulties under Sub-section (1) they may proceed to Sub-section (2). There is nothing in the language of the Amendment which obstructs unreasonably the activities of the police. The Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary misunderstood. It is not possible for the Amendment to thwart the police. They could act quite quickly in an emergency, but they would act knowing all the while that the grounds of their action would be open to challenge in the courts. Therefore—and this is my main point—in view of the fact that they might be challenged, they would tend to see what the powers under Sub-section (1) would do first of all in achieving their object before rushing to the exercise of the powers under Subsection (2). My hon. Friends on this side of the House are grievously disappointed. We are disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to meet us
on the Report stage, in his regard. I want to learn whether the effect has been considered of -the exercise of Sub-section (1) of the Bill, after the acceptance of the Amendment in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman may find it possible to accept the Amendment which I have moved.

7.16 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I have listened with great interest and respect to what the hon. Gentleman has said. Although I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view put from the benches opposite, I find myself in this difficulty: I agree it is highly undesirable in ordinary circumstances to prohibit the holding of political processions, but I think there are circumstances of great tension in which the police must have the most effective vehicle they can command to make use of the powers given to them. I fear that


the effect of the Amendment may be to enable a person to proceed against the police and, by asking for a mandate, to hold up those powers. I know upon unimpeachable authority that at this present moment of tension certain processions have been taking place in the West End and have been instigated by the Fascist party. The members of them were wholly composed of Fascists. If we got a similar period of tension, every hon. Member who believes in law and order would agree that it is undesirable that processions of irresponsible people should be allowed to parade about chanting slogans.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why?

Earl WINTERTON: Most reasonable people would think so.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Why?

Earl WINTERTON: I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would be described as a reasonable person and that all people, except those of extremist views, would think it highly undesirable.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. The Noble Lord has raised this point, and I want to know whether it will be in order for us to reply to it. I hold a totally different view.

Mr. SPEAKER: It was the hon. Gentleman himself who raised the point by his question to the Noble Lord.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I raised nothing about these demonstrations. I asked only why they were dangerous, and I was told that there were certain reasons. I want to know, seeing that the point has been raised, whether we may discuss it further.

Earl WINTERTON: I have not the slightest intention of discussing it, and that was why I did not answer the question of the hon. Gentleman, except to tell him that it was for reasons which were obvious. I do not propose to discuss it, and I gave it only as an example.

Mr. MAXTON: The Noble Lord raised the point.

Earl WINTERTON: We all know the great importance which the hon. Gentleman and his friends attach to their views in this House, but they are not the only people here. I hope that we may put our

views without these four scintillating geniuses always endeavouring to intervene—although we pay great tribute to their Parliamentary integrity and intelligence. Let me return to the point of view put by the hon. Gentleman opposite. If, on this side of the House, we do not feel inclined to support him in the Lobby, it is because we feel that, on the whole, the point of view taken by the Government is correct. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think that we do not sympathise with the view as to the possible dangers of the situation, but this is one of the matters in which the House should be very careful to see that the rights of the ordinary, orderly public are not interfered with.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. EDE: One aspect of the question has not yet been dealt with, but it ought to be mentioned. I drew attention to it on the Committee stage. I view with some apprehension the way in which this matter will be administered in the counties. This is generally discussed from the point of view of the chief constable advising the council whose watch committee he serves. The number of police boroughs in the country is small; it was, in fact, reduced in number by the action of the last Parliament, which settled that no borough under 30,000 in population in England and Wales was to remain a police borough. No urban district council is a police authority and the non-police boroughs and urban districts will be administered, for the purpose of this Bill—outside the Metropolitan Police District—by the police authority, which is the standing joint committee of the county.
I envisage something like this happening: The sergeant of police in an urban district or small borough hears that a procession is to take place and, for traffic purposes while the procession is on, if it is of any size, he will require to have his very limited police force reinforced by police from some other part of the county. He will telephone to the chief constable and say so. The chief constable might not want to draft police into that part of the district, and his powers under Sub-section (1) of this Clause may not be sufficient to enable him so to route the procession as to be able to avoid that. What is to prevent


him from saying: "Such traffic disorder will be created that I cannot contemplate allowing this procession to take place"? He goes to the meeting of some quite small borough or urban district council. The visit of the chief constable of the county is not to be lightly treated, when he officially attends such a gathering, and he is not likely to treat the members with any very great respect for their individual opinions. He says: "I cannot guarantee you a sufficient number of police to keep order in the town on the day of the procession." It would be a very bold borough or urban district council which, in face of such a warning, said: "Very well, whatever you say, we will not endorse your desire to prohibit the procession, and we will allow it to take place."
If any borough or urban district council were wavering as to whether to say "Yes" or "No," the knowledge that the chief constable would not reinforce the local police force would be sufficient to turn their minds upon such an issue. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this situation should be considered. Curiously enough, I notice that if a procession is to take place in a rural district the problem does not arise at all. There are a great many areas in the country which are more difficult to control for this purpose, although technically they are rural rather than urban districts. I can give an example quite near to London. The only place in Surrey where I recollect serious disorder is Horley, when Mr. Ure, who was a very distinguished member of the Liberal party, had his meetings broken up by Conservatives. I am sure that the Home Secretary will recollect the disfavour with which Mr. Ure was regarded at that time in London, and the difficulty he had in obtaining a hearing.

Sir J. SIMON: Is Horley either a borough or an urban district?

Mr. EDE: No, and that is precisely my point.

Sir J. SIMON: I submit that, as the Sub-section deals only with circumstances in a borough or urban district, the illustration used by the hon. Gentleman, although very interesting, seems to be irrelevant.

Mr. EDE: Up to the moment the right hon. Gentleman has not quite seized my point. That is a rural district, and therefore a chief constable can take no action with regard to it. The district runs up to the borough of Reigate, which is a police borough. Let us suppose that somebody wants to hold a demonstration which, in the mind of the chief constable of Reigate, is liable to cause great public disorder. In order that there may be no trouble, let me say that the present chief constable of Reigate is a most reasonable person who would exercise his powers reasonably. But let us suppose that, in the course of nature, he departs, and is succeeded by someone not so reasonable who prohibits a demonstration in Reigate borough. The demonstration has only to be held just over the boundary, and the chief constable has no power to interfere with it. Under this Sub-section, neither has the chief constable of Surrey.
I suggest that there is an easy way out of the difficulty in certain circumstances. The words which were amended in Sub-section (1) ought to be imported into this Sub-section. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has now seized the point which was not clear to him before. I am sorry that I had not made clear what I was leading up to. I should be concerned only with demonstrations in which Conservatives were likely to be the unruly people. As at present worded, the Measure will cause great apprehension in the counties that it may lead to the prohibition of demonstrations not because of great public disorder but for quite other reasons. A police force has sometimes to be brought considerable distances at great inconvenience, to carry out ordinary traffic duty which, if not properly performed, is likely to create disorder.

7.29 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I apologise to hon. Members for not being here at the beginning of the discussion. I claim to be familiar with this point. It is not the case that, owing to oversight or inattention, a change was made in Sub-section (1) but no similar words were inserted in Sub-section (2). The change in Subsection (1), which was made in Committee, the Government very gladly accept, and I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who, I think, sug-


gested it. But, having made that change in Sub-section (1), it did not seem to me then, and it does not seem to me now, that it is in the least right, because that change has been made in Sub-section (1), to make it in Sub-section (2). The two things look the same, and it sounds logical and sensible to ask why, if it is done in the one case, it is not done in the other; but, if anyone is still doubtful on the point, I think I can show that there really is a. difference.
Sub-section (2) is a very special, and I hope will turn out in practice to be a very rarely used, provision. It is one to be used in an emergency, because the case is a wholly exceptional case that cannot be dealt with under Sub-section (1). If you have such a case—the Noble Lord gave an illustration just now —I think it will be at least agreed that as a practical matter it is desirable that it should be dealt with pretty quickly one way or the other. What is suggested in favour of inserting, in line 14, in place of the words "the chief officer of police is of opinion," the words "the chief officer of police has reasonable grounds for apprehending"? It is said, "May we not otherwise be giving the opportunity for this exceptional Sub-section to be put into play when it really ought not to be put into play, because it is not really the case that there is reasonable ground for putting it into play?"
If this matter were simply left to the chief officer of police to decide, I think there would be great force in that view, even though admittedly this Sub-section is very exceptional, because we must provide for speed. If we are to assume that at some future day the chief constable of, say, Reigate, will not only be very unreasonable, but that, he being very unreasonable, his word will be law and no one will be able to challenge it, there would be a great deal to be said for protecting future residents of the borough against so unreasonable an exercise of his powers. But that is not so. Let the House observe what is going to happen before Sub-section (1) can ever operate at all. There is to be in the first place the application of the chief officer of police alleging that he is of opinion, by reason of very special circumstances, that a more drastic order is needed. The fact that he says so does not produce any result at all. He

then has to go before the council of the borough or district, and it is they, and not the chief officer of police, who have to decide whether they are going to make the order. I cannot but think that, if a highly unreasonable chief officer of police for Reigate were really to go and put his views before his council, he would have great difficulty in getting over that.
But that is not all. Let us suppose that the unreasonable, it may be iniquitous, conduct of the chief constable is countenanced by the elected council of the district. Still nothing happens. Nothing can happen without the consent of the Secretary of State. Far be it from me to say that the Secretary of State also may not suffer every now and then from unreasonable aberrations, but, all the same, I should like to know what would happen to a Secretary of State who perpetrated the sort of absurdity that is suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, when he has not only got to give his consent, but knows that he would have to meet the challenge of the whole House of Commons? Is it really sensible to say, in these circumstances, that we are running some risk which calls for those Members who have appointed themselves the guardians of public liberties in this country saying that these words must be inserted?
That is the first consideration. The second is that as a matter of fact to put in these words would create what in effect would be a gap in the machinery which we are devising. The words "if the chief officer of the police is of opinion," and so on, simply start the application on its way, like, as it were, the making of a claim which has to be considered by various authorities. If it is said that he can only start this procedure if he has reasonable ground for apprehending, either that makes no difference or, if it does make a difference, it is because hon. Gentlemen who wish to make this change conceive at that point some legal proceedings—

Mr. PRITT: Not at that point.

Sir J. SIMON: Let me first assume that it is at that point. I gather from the hon. and learned Gentleman's gesture that he regards that as almost too ridiculous to mention, and I register the fact that he agrees that, if it were conceived that by this change of words any-


one was going to have any possible opportunity of intervening through a legal process at that point, it would be truly ridiculous.

Mr. PRITT: Let me say that the fact that that would happen has been the only argument put forward from the Front Government Bench up to now.

Sir J. SIMON: I am trying to give another reason, on which the House, of course, will judge. It would have appeared to me that, if one were to put in these words "has reasonable grounds," the police might be expected to suppose that that was in order to provide for an application to the court. I should have thought there might be people who would think that someone might apply to the Divisional Court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order made with the consent of the Secretary of State on the ground that that order was ultra vices inasmuch as the chief officer of police never had reasonable ground for apprehension, and that consequently the basis of the order was missing. I should have thought that that was a possible view for a learned Gentleman to take. But now the hon. and learned Gentleman says that that point had never entered his head. Is it suggested that there is to be an ex post facto investigation? What would be the good of that? We are dealing with this Sub-section in an emergency, in which in, the nature of things, a decision has to be reached fairly quickly. Let us suppose that we did get a series of converging processions of the most formidable kind coming down, let us say, to East London, which could not be routed and controlled but must be prohibited over an area. How much time are you going to spend in talking about this? It has got to be done, and done quickly, and I should have thought that it might well be done with the consent of the Secretary of State under conditions which would secure that the liberties of the people are properly regarded. The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is so very anxious about protecting liberties, must always remember that we are all equally concerned about that, and that we are only trying to find the best machinery. I do not think that any hon. Member represening a constituency in East London, who might visualise a series of converging processions on a particular area which were

likely beyond question to produce the greatest possible racial antagonism, would attack those in this House who are trying to make the operation of the Bill more effective. I think that, if such exceptional circumstances arose, he would say that the chief officer of police should apply to the proper authority, should explain why he applies, and should answer the proper authority if he is asked, "What reasonable ground have you for thinking this?"; and that, if they think it ought to be done, they should pass on the order for the approval of the Secretary of State, and ultimately the control of the House of Commons. I hope I have shown the House that this is not a question of obstinacy or blind officialdom, but merely that, having looked at this matter as well as I can with the skilled assistance that I have, I believe we shall make a better measure of this Clause if we keep Sub-section (2) as it is.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has put to us the case of a Divisional Court quashing an order made under this Section by a writ of certiorari. If these words are included, the normal way in which the matter would arise would be that someone would be prosecuted under Sub-section (4) of the Clause, and he would then be able to plead as a defence that the order under which the procession was banned was not a valid order.

Sir J. SIMON: Is that really a very reasonable course? Once the proper steps had been taken to bring in the judgment of the chief officer of police, the judgment of the local authority, the judgment of the Home Secretary, and, if necessary, the judgment of the House of Commons, and if a man, then, in the face of all these orders, said, "I do not care; I am going on my own way; they are all wrong, and I am the only reasonable person in the neighbourhood," I should have thought it was a little far-fetched to say that, when he was prosecuted, he could plead that the chief of police had no reasonable ground. I would remind the hon. Member that sometimes such persons happen to sit on a jury, when they consider that all the other members of the jury are wrong and are most unreasonable people. That one person, of course, is always right in his own view, but he is Athanasius contra mundum. For protection against such persons we must


have a machine which will work with reasonable certainty, under which the police will know where they are, and which will give, as the Bill as it stands will give, adequate protection for all public liberties.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Unfortunately I was not able to be present to hear the whole of the Home Secretary's remarks, but I think that the Home Secretary himself was not present at the beginning of this Debate, and I do not think he has really met the points put forward and answered the argument. The argument is that the remote possibility that such a case could come before the court at some stage will influence the council in its original decision, and that is the object of moving the Amendment. We do not suggest that it would be possible effectively, or would be desirable, to stop the order by court proceedings before the procession took place. It is very unlikely that it will ever be challenged afterwards, but the insertion of the proposed words in the Bill would provide just that feeling in the constable's mind that he must do it on reasonable grounds.

Sir J. SIMON: Of course, it is the chief officer of police, and not the constable. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I said that I had contemplated—and I think that possibly the House will agree with me in this—drawing up and sending round to the police forces of the country a very careful statement on this Bill when it is passed. If it would help, I should be very glad to give an assurance now that I will make sure that that circular draws very emphatic attention to the wholly exceptional character of this procedure, and the absolute necessity of only adopting it when it is really right to do so. I am not going to give way on the Amendment, but I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I did not understand the point.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: It seems to me that we are talking quite away from reality when you get the right hon. Gentleman saying that, if the chief constable goes to the local authority and makes a demand for the prohibition of a demonstration under what he calls exceptional

circumstances, there will be some difficulty experienced with the local authority. The chief constable in Glasgow has already gone to the local authority and has barred off a considerable portion, and an important portion, of Glasgow from any demonstrations of any kind. I am certain that if those who are concerned with demonstrations wrote to the Home Secretary, he would support the town council and the chief constable but, if we were able to take the matter into court, there could be no legal decision that the whole of Glasgow is barred so far as any demonstration of ours is concerned. I do not know if a Fascist demonstration would be barred in the same way. Other organisations can march through areas which are prohibited to us.
I was in a demonstration in Edinburgh on a Sunday evening shortly before I came to this House. A gentleman called at the district police station and asked the officer in charge if it could not be stopped. The officer said he would stop it. He came with a policeman and met us and told us to stop the demonstration. We said no. He went and gathered many more policemen and came and broke up the demonstration. I and another were taken to gaol about nine o'clock in the evening and let out about half-past one on bail. In the court the police brought witnesses. One was an old lady who was shocked at a Communist demonstration on a Sunday night. Another said she heard me saying things that she thought very disloyal. The magistrate had to dismiss the case. Nevertheless, there you have the police acting without the Bill in a manner which you would believe impossible from the language used by the Home Secretary.
The noble Lord referred to a demonstration in Whitehall as an example. I will give an example. They were shouting for our King. If they had been shouting for bread, they would have been smashed to pieces. I am at the receiving end. I have often been at the receiving end in matters of this kind. I shall be at the receiving end under this Bill. I know what is going to happen. I am talking of experience that I have had in present circumstances and I know the power that there is at present. It is not very much to ask for power to apply to the courts and try to show that there is no reasonable ground for stopping a demonstration. It is a small concession


for which we ask one little possible safeguard against the most extraordinary action that is taken against us. The chief constable can impose his will in these matters on the local autliority and the local authority can impose their will upon the Home Secretary. Will you not

give us this one little chance of having a demonstration?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 210; Noes, 135.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[7.53 p.m.


Acland Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Petherick, M.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Pilkington, R.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Grimston, R. V.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Aske. Sir R. W
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Balniel, Lord
Guy, J. C. M.
Ramsbotham, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Harbord, A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Belt, Sir A. L.
Hepworth, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Blair, Sir R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Blindell, Sir J.
Holdsworth, H.
Remer, J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Holmes, J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brecklebank, C. E. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Butler, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sandys, E. D.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Scott, Lord William


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw. Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cary, R. A.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Channon, H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Christie, J. A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Clark, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somervell, Sir D B. (Crewe)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Levy, T.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lewis, O.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lloyd, G. W.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Loftus, P. C.
Spens, W. P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Craven Ellis, W.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Critchley, A.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, J. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn.J. R. (Scot. U.)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crossley, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cruddas, Col. B.
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macmillan, H. (Stoekton.on Tees)
Sutcliffe, H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Denville, Alfred 
Magnay, T.
Tate, Mavis C.


Dodd, J. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Train, Sir J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Markham, S. F.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Ellis, Sir G.
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmiey, Viscount
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Emery, J. F.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir J. S.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Entwistle, C. F.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wells, S. R.


Erskine Hill, A. G.
Munro, P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nall, Sir J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Flides, Sir H.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fleming, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Wragg, H.


Furness, S. N.
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Wright, Squadron Leader J. A. C.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Owen, Major G.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Palmer, G. E. H.



Gledhill, G.
Peat, C. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gluckstein, L. H.
Penny, Sir G.
Captain Hope and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, G. D.
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Rowson, G.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Burke, W. A.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Simpson, F. B.


Clynes, Rt. Hon, J. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thorne, W.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Foot, D. M.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. McL.


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams. T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out from "shall," to the end of line 30, and to insert:
report such circumstances to the council of the borough or district and the council may recommend to a Secretary of State that an Order ought to be made prohibiting for such period as may be specified in the recommendation the holding of all processions or of any class of procession so specified, either in the borough or the urban district or in any part thereof, as the case may be, and the Secretary of State may make an Order, either in the terms of the recommendation or with such modifications as he may think fit;
Provided that every Order so made shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and, if an Address is presented by either House within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such Order is laid before it praying that the Order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.
I think that Sub-section (2) is practically the only important Sub-section in

respect of which no Amendment has as yet been accepted by the Government. I am one of those who think that the powers which are contemplated here are still very much too wide. As regards Sub-section (1), we have admitted that our objections have been very largely met and that as the Sub-section is now drawn it is possible to take the view that it does not do very much more than put into statutory form the powers which the police already possess under their general duty of keeping the peace, and which, in fact, they already exercise in many parts of the country. But one cannot possibly take that attitude towards Sub-section (2) because—and I have no doubt that the learned Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong—the powers contained in Sub-section (2) are entirely novel. There are a great many objections which have been stated before, and I do not propose to go through them all now, but the House must remember that in this Sub-section there is no time limit whatever. The ban that is to be


placed upon processions by a council, with the approval of the Secretary of State, may be a permanent ban. I do not say that it will be expressed in those terms, but it may be for 100 years, 500 years, or 1,000 years, 'and there is nothing in the Sub-section to prevent it. I ask the House to note that the ban that may be passed applies to all kinds of processions, whether political or not. If, in fact, a local authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, decides that processions are to be prohibited for a certain period of time, it means that nobody, no matter how peaceful or law-abiding he may be, can hold a procession in the area.
It is not perhaps the point of major importance, but only this morning I received representations from certain friendly societies in one part of the country who said that at certain times of the year they were in the habit of holding processions. It may be that most of them are situated in some peaceful parts of the country, but if any of them Were situated or had headquarters or held conferences in some town or urban district where a ban of this sort was imposed, it must be impossible for them to have a procession of any kind. I give that as an example to show how very wide are the powers proposed in this Sub-section. This particular form of demonstration is rarely used by certain political parties and is rather disregarded by others. The party to which I belong and, I think, the Conservative party, do not very often indulge in processions. I agree that they occasionally do, but processions are not one of their usual methods of demonstration. The Communists and the Fascists, and to rather a lesser extent the party above the Gangway, still indulge in processions from time to time. It is from the very fact that you have a form of demonstration not much used by some parties but a good deal used by others that some danger arises. You may easily have local authorities, as you have now in many parts of the country, with what some of us consider rather old-fashioned political opinions, who may very well take the view that they see no use in processions and are in favour of prohibiting all processions.
On the Committee stage of the Bill an Amendment was put down—I do not think that it was called by the Chairman

of Committees—by some hon. Members opposite which would have had the effect of prohibiting practically all processions in every part of the country. If we find that mentality represented in this House, how much more may we expect to find it represented on local authorities in many parts of the country? If you have local authorities with these views and at the same time a complacent Home Secretary, a phenomenon which is not unknown, in these circumstances there is very little safeguard against the misuse of these powers. I hope we shall not be told that while there is not much check in this Clause in fact these powers will not be unconscionably used. We advanced very much on those lines in the last Amendment. It seems to be a singularly poor argument to bring forward in this House when we give powers in a Measure which is intended to be a kind of permanent code on this branch of the law, and we are doing something which will last for many years to come. We cannot tell how these powers will be used, and the only safeguard we have is not to rely upon the word of the Home Secretary, however well intentioned he is, that he will not use these powers; the only safeguard is not to give these powers.
There are two ways in this country by which we control the actions of those set in authority over us. One is by appealing to the courts or by going to the courts to get decisions or orders quashed, and the other is by the control exercised by this House or in local government by other elected authorities. In the last Amendment it was suggested that the control of the courts should be inserted, and because the last Amendment was turned down I suggest that there is all the stronger reason for inserting this Amendment. The last Amendment was resisted by the Home Secretary on the ground that we should, under this Subsection, have the right of challenge in the House of Commons. We all know how much that challenge is worth. I propose in the Amendment which I am asking the House to accept to make the Parliamentary control upon which the Home Secretary has laid so much stress both on the Committee stage and on the last Amendment, not a shadow but a reality. I do not want to repeat the arguments I used on the Committee stage, but to what would the control we should have under this Sub-section amount? You


could put a question to the Home Secretary, and if you received an unfavourable answer all that you could do in the ordinary way would be to speak on the Adjournment at 11 o'clock at night, when the whole Debate, however complicated the matter might be, would have to be limited to half an hour. The only other opportunity you would be likely to have would be on something like a Supply Day, when in the ordinary way you could raise a certain matter, but it might be raised as one among 15 or 20 other matters, and the Minister would not be to blame if he could only answer you in two or three perfunctory sentences. There is no other way in which you could compel the House to come to a decision. Even on a Supply Day there would be no way in which you could isolate that particular issue and get a vote upon it.
I do not say that this form of Parliamentary control which arises from being able to ask questions and use the Adjournment is without value, but we all know quite well that it is a very limited form of control and one which is not very easy to exercise. I am proposing that, instead of the local council making an order, the Secretary of State should make an order on the recommendation of the council. An order would, in fact, under the scheme I am asking the House to accept, become operative from the moment it was approved by the Secretary of State. The Amendment would not mean any form of delay over and above what would necessarily be involved in the machinery already contained in the Subsection. But it would mean that we should be able to discuss it in this House and, if necessary, turn it down. I speak subject to correction, but I think that I am right in saying that, when you have a provision of the sort set down saying that an order may be annulled within 21 days if either House presents a Prayer praying that it should be annulled, that is exempted business, so that it is something we should be able to take after 11 o'clock at night, and we should be able to have a very much fuller debate on it than on anything raised on the Adjournment.
The Home Secretary resisted the last Amendment and rather a similar Amendment which I moved on the Committee stage simply on the ground that he

preferred Parliamentary control. He said that we should make that Parliamentary control effective, and that is what I am asking the House to do by this Amendment. There is one possible objection which I should like to anticipate. It may be said that an order may be made in an emergency and made only for a short time, and that, in fact, it may have expired before it can be considered by this House or before the 21 days have elapsed. I agree that it is possible for that to happen, and I should be prepared, if the Government will consider this Amendment, to insert some further form of words in the Amendment saying that this should apply only where an order was to last for more than two or three months. But I ask the Government, and the House, if necessary, to accept the principle of the Amendment which is, that we should not only be able to criticise the action of the Home Secretary, but, if necessary, to put it to the test of a division.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITHS: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and I in putting forward this Amendment have some claim upon the indulgence of the House because we have really learned from what was said in the Debate on the Committee stage in this matter. We put down an Amendment, which, it may be remembered, we did not actually move, but which was discussed by anticipation in dealing with another matter—an Amendment which would have allowed an appeal to quarter sessions as the authority instead of to the Secretary of State. I am bound to say that Members in all parts of the House said that that would not do; that Parliamentary control was a great thing, and that here we were taking it away. My hon. Friend and I appreciated that point. Parliamentary control was indeed to be recognised as a matter of enormous importance, and what we are doing now is to take the Committee and the Government at their word and say that we should make this Parliamentary control not merely a name but a reality.
My hon. Friend has exposed the rather artificial nature of Parliamentary control as it would be left in the Bill as drafted. Even with the form which we suggest I do not say that Parliamentary control


would be complete. It would still be possible for the Secretary of State to apply his majority, bringing up his big battalions, if he was in danger of defeat. That is something that we have always to face, in that a majority may vote mechanically. All the amendments suggested on this Clause are essential for the protection of minorities, but I am not going to pretend that even this Amendment would give complete protection to minorities. We should, however, give them such protection as might be obtained in this case. Surely that is something worth doing. That is what we were asked to do by the Government supporters in the Committee stage, and in spirit we are following what they said by putting forward this Amendment.

8.16 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We advise the House not to accept this Amendment. I agree that this Clause confers wide powers and requires careful scrutiny. We think that the scrutiny is all right as it stands. It provides three formidable safeguards, under which three individuals have to agree. First, the chief officer of police has to be of opinion that by reason of particular circumstances the powers conferred upon him in the previous Sub-section are insufficient. Then he has to make application to a popularly elected local authority. But it does not stop there. My right hon. Friend appreciated that the powers under the Sub-section were drastic and exceptional, and therefore he put in a further safeguard, that the consent of the Secretary of State is required in order to enable any hon. Member in this House, if necessary, to challenge at once the action taken, by Question, by Supplementary Question, by discussion on the Adjournment, and also on the occasion when the salary of the Secretary of State comes up. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) put rather lightly the control of this House over the executive. He may say that there would be only question and answer, but everybody knows that if the Minister gives an unsatisfactory answer or an evasive answer and in the opinion of the House he has not a good case, he becomes the subject of public criticism.
We say that the safeguards now provided are right and proper safeguards and that the procedure of an Order lying

on the Table, while it may be the appropriate procedure when you are dealing with some semi-legislative regulation, is not the right procedure in regard to a series of executive and admininstrative acts. The safeguards in the Clause as it stands are, in our opinion, complete, but the laying of an Order, on the Table for 21 days is really not the right form of safeguard for an administrative act of this kind.

Mr. FOOT: How would that procedure hinder the Minister in any way from applying the Act?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is not the appropriate procedure.

Mr. GALLACHER: What is?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The procedure in the Clause.

Mr. GALLACHER: There is safe-guard there.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The safe-guards provided are the appropriate safe-guards, and I would ask the House to accept them. Even of the safeguards had stopped at the local authority, there would have to be the chief officer of police and the popularly-elected local authority in agreement. There is nothing in the nature of dictatorship there. But we have further arranged that the Secretary of State must also assent. Surely, therefore, nobody can say that there are not adequate safeguards to prevent these powers from being abused. The question that we have to decide is whether the laying of an Order on the Table is the appropriate procedure or whether the procedure provided for in the Clause, which brings in the Secretary of State, subject to Parliamentary control, is the appropriate course to adopt. I ask the House to consider fairly the Clause as it stands, and I think they will be satisfied that it already contains adequate safeguards and that to apply what is suggested in the Amendment is not the appropriate procedure.

8.22 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: We have had a valuable admission from the Attorney-General. I am glad to know that there is not much between us in regard to high principle, but there is a lot of importance to be attached to this procedure. I am an older Parliamentarian


than the Attorney-General. He is a capable Attorney-General, but he has not had many years' experience of this House. I submit that if these provisions are to be adopted we ought to take the form of our Amendment. I know how extraordinarily difficult it is for a private Member to challenge the decision of a Secretary of State. These matters largely affect private Members. People would not go to the unpleasant procedure of organising a procession unless they had some serious grievance which they thought the House of Commons would not remedy. If the grievance is of a character that is likely to appeal to the Government or the majority of the House they approach their Member of Parliament with a view to getting their grievance put right.
As a rule processions are organised by minorities who feel that they have grievances which they want to advertise. Naturally the Government of the day are impatient and rather unwilling to have the fact that a procession has been prohibited ventilated in the House of Commons. The only opportunity a minority has of challenging the decision of a

constable and a local authority, confirmed by the Secretary of State, will be that it has to lie on the Table of this House when there is a chance of challenging the decision directly by requiring that time should be allocated for the discussion. I frankly admit that this is not very much control. We have had some experience of Import Duty Orders, which are usually taken at 11 o'clock at night when hon. Members are anxious to go home, but we should have this security that people with a grievance would have an opportunity of discussing it in the House. I beg the Attorney-General to realise that he is denying the rights of the House of Commons and really defying Parliament. He is saying "Trust the Executive; do not let us have this cumbersome, slow delay of criticism by the House of Commons." This proposal will not weaken the law; it will operate effectively, but it will give minorities in this country the important right of having their grievances ventilated in the House of Commons.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'as', in line 22, stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 186: Noes, 142.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
8.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Critchley, A.
Hepworth. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Crooke, J. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hills. Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cross, R. H.
Holmes. J. S.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. 


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hopkinson. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Belt, Sir A. L.
Denman, Hon. R. L.
Hulbert, N. J.


Bernays, R. H.
Dodd, J. S.
Hunter, T.


Blair, Sir R.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Eastwood, J. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Bracken, B.
Eckersley, P. T.
Kimball, L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Ellis, Sir G.
Latham, Sir P.


Brown. Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Elmley, Viscount
Leckie, J. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Emery, J. F.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Erskine Hill, A. G.
Levy, T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lewis, O.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fildes, Sir H.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Cary, R. A.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Loftus, P. C.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Furness, S. N.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lyons. A. M.


Christie, J. A.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Clark, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gledhill, G.
MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Gluckstein, L. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Clydesdale. Marquess of
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Magnay, T.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh,W.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Harbord, A.
Markham, S. F.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)




Moreing, A. C.
Remer, J. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear Admiral Sir M. F.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Rowlands, G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Nall, Sir J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Tate, Mavis C.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Salt, E. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Turton, R. H.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wakefield, W. W.


Peat, C. U.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Penny, Sir G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Petherick, M.
Simmonds, O. E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wells, S. R.


Pilkington, R.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Radford, E. A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ramsbotham, H.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wragg, H.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Spens, W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Mr. James Stuart and Captain Waterhouse.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Groves, T. E.
Owen, Major G.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Paling, W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hardie, G. D.
Parkinson, J A.


Adamson, W. M.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Holdsworth, H.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Ridley, G.


Bellenger, F.
Hopkin, D.
Riley, B.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon, F. O (W. Brom.)


Bromfield, W.
John, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rowson, G.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. A.


Cape, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Charleton, H. C
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Short, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Silkin, L.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G
Simpson, F. B.


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B Lees- (K'ly)


Dalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McGhee, H. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Frankel, D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
White, H. Graham


Gibbins, J.
Milner, Major J.
Whiteley, W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A
Muff, G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Foot and Mr. Kingsley Griffith.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

8.38 p.m

Mr. PETHICH-LAWRENCE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 22, after "period," to insert "not exceeding three months."
The object of this Amendment is to limit the time for which the order pro-

hibiting processions can be made. As the Bill stands, the chief constable may have an order made prohibiting processions,
for such period as may be specified in the application,


and no limit of any kind is put upon that period. The hon. Gentleman who moved the last Amendment suggested that it might be a period of 500 or 1,000 years. I do not take that somewhat exaggerated view of the time, but I feel there ought to be a very much shorter limit imposed. If the circumstances continued at the end of that time, it would, of course, be possible for the chief constable to make an application for a further period, but I think three months would be adequate. The proposal that there should be a ban on processions is a very severe and an entirely novel one.
I hope very much that the Government will accept the Amendment. When this Clause was under discussion in Committee, I pointed out that many hon. Members on these benches were in some difficulty about the whole Clause, and particularly about this Sub-section. I had hoped that the Home Secretary would find some Amendment which would relieve their anxiety in regard to it, but the right hon. Gentleman has not put, down any Amendment which affects the situation. All the Amendments which we have put down so far have been rejected by the Government. This Amendment seems to me to be one to which they could not take exception, and I hope that at last they will make a concession which will at any rate be some safeguard against serious abuses under this Sub-section.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I am one of those who are not very fond of processions at any time, particularly political processions, but I have been struck by the weight of evidence in the House that a great number of hon. Members believe that those processions serve a very useful purpose and in certain circumstances are a very useful safety valve. If that view is held—and unless it is held I do not think Clause 3 can be justified at all—it is not reasonable to say that, because of what the Home Secretary himself described as an emergency, there should be given to anybody the right to forbid for an absolutely indefinite period of time processions in a certain area. I do not think that follows logically on what has gone before. Being naturally perhaps a little more temperate than the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr Pethick-Lawrence), I would have preferred a rather longer period than

three months, which is perhaps a little short as a limit; but on the principle that there should be a time-limit I entirely agree, and I hope the Government will see their way to make some concession, so that it cannot be said that any person or body of persons has the right to forbid for an unlimited period of time any processions in some particular area merely because on some given day an emergency arises.

8.42 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I do not think there is any material difference of principle between those who might support and those who might oppose this Amendment, and I shall be brief in stating the difficulty I see in the way of its acceptance. It is not the fear that if this Clause passes as it stands it will be in the power of any body of persons to impose, for an unlimited period, a ban upon processions, for that power will not exist. That power will at once be subjected to the very strong control which would be applied by pressure in this House upon the Secretary of State and pressure in the local area upon the urban district council or the borough council, as the case might be. Anything in the nature of an excessive duration of the ban is under control by such a method of check.
The difficulty I see is that the moment one inserts a maximum period, be it 12 months, or three months, as suggested in. the Amendment, that maximum will become the normal, or perhaps the minimum. Experience has shown again and again that when one imposes by Statute a minimum, it tends to become the minimum or the normal. I should have thought that the necessities of the emergency which Sub-section (2) is intended to meet could frequently be met by an Order of less duration than three months. If we inserted in this Clause a maximum period of three months, or any other period, I think it would he found in practice that it would at once become the normal. Accordingly, while frankly I do not regard this as a vital point, my suggestion to the House would be not to insert any period, on the simple ground that if there is any tendency on the part of anyone to make the ban last too long, there exist means for preventing such a result. If any period were inserted beyond which the ban must not


extend, there would at once be the risk of the undesirable results to which I have referred. For that reason, I suggest that it is not desirable to press this Amendment.

8.45 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has rather contradieted his own argument. He has pointed out that in this case the Secretary of State will be the final authority as regards the period and other matters connected with the Order. If the Secretary of State is to be the final authority to determine, among other things, the period of the Order it is not likely that he will consider the words "not exceeding three months" as imposing a minimum as well as a maximum. The argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman is a common argument, and is of some avail in eases where you have no such authority as the Secretary of State. Where a number of small authorities have power to make orders for periods not exceeding three months, there is the ha, bility that they may put in three months almost automatically in every case. Here you will have the control of the Secretary of State in every case and we can, I think, give sufficient credit to the Secretary of State, of whatever party he may be, to assume that he will not treat the insertion of these words as prescribing an automatic minimum as well as an automatic maximum. He will exercise his discretion but he will not be able to exercise that discretion to exceed the three months period.
If an order is to be continued it will be necessary for the chief officer of police to make a fresh recommendation to the local authority. It will then be for the local authority to reconsider the circumstances in the light of their three months experience and finally for the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter in the light of the fact that he has to make a fresh order for a further period. It will at least give a greater measure of control if the matter is to come up automatically for reconsideration at definite periods. I am sure we can trust the Secretary of State not to put in three months automatically, but to realise that this period is a maximum and so to deal with all cases on their merits, giving shorter periods where he thinks it necessary even though the local authority may not think it necessary. This Amendment

is a substantial safeguard against an order being imposed and then almost forgotten and allowed to continue indefinitely in some area where there has at seine time been trouble. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate the reasonableness of this request and will accept the insertion of these words with the very small risk which is attached to that course, of the Home Secretary not being intelligent enough to appreciate the meaning of "not exceeding three months."

8.50 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I support the insertion of these words though in any event I shall not be at all happy as regards Sub-section (2) of this Clause. In my judgment the position as far as processions are concerned is amply safeguarded by Sub-section (1) dealing with the diversion of processions from customary routes—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): We cannot go into that matter now. We must keep to the terms of the Amendment.

Mr. ADAMS: I was merely pointing out that we are already safeguarded in that respect. I am satisfied that this Amendment is imperatively necessary. We are informed that the House will have control in regard to these orders but to what does the control of the House amount, if you have not a majority in the House? As an illustration, suppose in the city of Durham there was a Conservative council and there was unrest in the mining industry and the miners wished to demonstrate in the customary way with bands and banners to indicate to the public generally, through the Press, what their grievances were. An order might be made in such a case for an indefinite period. We are told that we can come to the House of Commons for relief in a case of that kind. One would imagine that it was only necessary to state the case here and that the majority of the House would assent to it. But in the House of Commons unless you are in the majority there is no such protection. I myself have raised on the Adjournment Motion real grievances which ought to have been rectified but no rectification has taken place, nor do we expect it unless we can secure a majority of the House. For that reason. I feel it necessary to have


this specific limit placed on the period during which processions can be excluded from certain areas.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With the permission of the House, may I say that I endeavoured to indicate in my reply that this point did not impress me as a very important one, but as it is evident that hon. Members attach importance to it, I am prepared to take the responsibility of accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

8.54 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, at the end, to insert:
This Sub-section shall not apply within the City of London as defined for the purposes of the Acts relating to the City police or within the Metropolitan police district.
There is no principle involved in this Amendment, which is little more than a drafting one. In Committee I pointed out the undesirability of legislation by reference in a matter affecting the liberties of the subject, and the necessity that powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions in an area of the size of the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District should be clearly set out in one Clause, instead of being indicated by a complicated system of references to previous enactments. Sub-section (3) is most complicated and difficult to understand and the object of this Amendment is that the law dealing with this matter as regards the City of London and the Metropolitan Police area shall be set out in one Clause.

Mr. PICKTHORN: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I am anxious to know why it is that the hon. Member wishes to place London in a position different from that of other parts of the country, and I am anxious to be assured that there is nothing in it. There is an effort in this country, and particularly in London, to make the Metropolitan Police appear to be a Government Department, and not merely a body of police, and I am not quite sure that the hon. Member, in moving this Amendment is not again engaged in that endeavour. I think the Metropolitan Police are just as much a local police force as any other force in

the country and that they have no right to any privileged position, and it seems to me that this Amendment has the intention of placing them in a privileged position.

8.56 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am obliged to the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) for drawing attention to what must be obvious to every Member of the House, namely, that the original Sub-section (3) does offer a pretty wide target to the type of criticism which is sometimes directed against legislation by reference. The Amendment, as I under stand it, makes no difference in the substance of the original Sub-section (3), but simply translates into a straightforward and intelligible statement what had to be gathered from a pretty close examination of the original Sub-section in the light of other statutory provisions. Viewing the matter accordingly as substantially a drafting Amendment, I have much pleasure in accepting it. In answer to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), I may say that the Amendment makes no change in what is proposed by the Bill, and, of course, the wider issues which he raised, or rather hinted at, are not, therefore, quite in point; and I humbly doubt whether you, Sir, would regard them in order on this Amendment. I propose to accept the Amendment.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not quite sure that the Lord Advocate, in accepting this Amendment, has appreciated that the same point as that raised in the last Amendment arises again here. It would not arise if we left Sub-section (3) in its original form, because originally the wording of Sub-section (2) applied mutatis mutandis to Sub-section (3), but in the amended words which are now proposed the substantive powers are recapitulated seriatim. I have no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be willing to accept the same Amendment in this case as in the other and to insert the words "not exceeding three months" in the appropriate place.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: At the moment we are dealing with the Amendment to insert certain words at the end of line 30. If that is accepted by the House, the next Amendment, to leave out Sub-section (3) and to insert a new Subsection (3), will follow as a consequential


Amendment, and it is when I put the question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," that the hon. Member will perhaps move his proposed Amendment to it.

Amendment agreed to.

8.59 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert:
(3) If at any time the Commissioner of the City of London Police or the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is of opinion that, by reason of particular circumstances existing in his police area or in any part thereof, the powers conferred on him by Sub-section (1) of this section will not be sufficient to enable him to prevent serious public disorder being occasioned by the holding of processions in that area or part, he may, with the consent of the Secretary of State, make an Order prohibiting for such period as may be specified in the Order the holding of all processions or of any class of procession so specified either in the police area or in that part thereof, as the case may be.

Mr. PICKTHORN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: In line 6, after "period," insert "not exceeding three months."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

The LORD ADVOCATE: I have no objection to the acceptance of the consequential Amendment.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: The Metropolitan Police area is an extended one and stretches beyond the borders of what we know as London proper, either the London County Council area or that wider area of Greater London, and there are Many borough councils and, urban councils in that area. By this Amendment and by the Bill throughout they were going to be left out of account, but while urban and borough councils and other councils throughout the country were to be consulted, so far as London is concerned, you are making the police the body which

shall decide, subject to the permission of the Secretary of State, as to the prohibition of processions for a period of three months or less. That seems to be very unfair. If there is any fairness in what is being done in other parts of the country, there is certainly unfairness with regard to those who are living within the Metropolitan Police area.

CLAUSE 4.—(Prohibition of offensive weapons at public meetings and processions.)

9.3 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 17, after the second "or," to insert:
as a member of a recognised corps or as a.
This Amendment will fall to he read with a further Amendment, which stands on the Order Paper to Clause 9, in page 7, at the end of line 27, where a definition is given of "recognised corps," and I would ask, with your permission, Sir, that the House should look at that definition. The whole purpose of this Amendment is to meet a criticism which was suggested when this Clause 4 was formerly before the Committee. It is the Clause which prohibits the carrying of offensive weapons at public meetings and processions, and which make provision to prevent an offence being committed by certain persons. If this Amendment is accepted, the final words of Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 will read:
…a person shall not be deemed to be acting in pursuance of lawful authority unless he is acting in his capacity as a servant of the Crown or of either House of Parliament or of any local authority or as a constable or as a member of a recognised corps or as a member of a fire brigade.
Members of rifle clubs, miniature rifle clubs, cadet corps and similar organisations may and do carry firearms when proceeding to drill for target practice or for purposes of that kind. Such persons carrying arms of one kind or another occasionally take part in such processions and displays as the Lord Mayor's Show and corresponding functions that take place in provincial towns. Obviously, that sort of thing does not come within this Measure at all. It is for the purpose of linking up this innocent use of firearms with corresponding provisions of the Firearms Act


that it is proposed that this Clause should exempt members of a recognised corps, which we propose subsequently to define as including
a rifle club, miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by a Secretary of State under the Firearms Acts, 1920–36.
If the House gives effect to the Amendment the result will be to secure that the members of the various bodies which are recognised under the Firearms Act and are legitimately carrying firearms will be free from prosecution under this Bill.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I have throughout these discussions believed that this Bill was not intended to go further than to deal with political processions and with those who wear uniforms in what is termed a militarised political organisation. The Lord Advocate mentioned the Lord Mayor's Show, but I had no idea that it was intended to take such organisations into account or to consider whether or not they should be prohibited.

Mr. D EPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not quite gathered the purpose of the Amendment, which is not to deal with processions, but with the carrying of firearms.

Mr. KELLY: I understand that. The Clause deals with the carrying of arms by people taking part in public processions, and the Amendment is intended to deal with recognised corps. I can see how it will be possible for those against whom the Measure is levelled to be made members of a recognised corps so that they will be able to escape the provisions of the Bill.

9.9 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I hope that the Lord Advocate will not insist on this Amendment in its full width because it is terrible to think that these heavily armed gentlemen may be present at public meetings. I can appreciate that we do not want to stop them parading in the Lord Mayor's Show, but that is a very different thing from giving them power to be present at public meetings. It puts a great temptation into the hands of some people to form a rifle corps—as they are being formed—under the control of a young and energetic Fascist in a business house. There are many to-day of that type, and

this Amendment will allow these people, with all their rifles, to go to a political meeting which will be addressed by some Fuhrer or leader. It would be quite sufficient if members of recognised corps were allowed to take part in certain authorised processions, in the same way as under Clause 1 (1) persons are allowed to wear uniforms on ceremonial, anniversary or other special occasions which will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder.
It would be sufficient here to give similar rights to members of rifle corps and other organisations to carry their arms on such occasions as the Lord Mayor's Show and similar processions, but it would not give them the right to appear at public meetings as a body of persons armed with rifles. This Amendment specifically gives them power to do that. In fact, it will legalise something which would be of doubtful legal validity apart from this Clause. This is not cutting down, but extending the law. I beg the Lord Advocate to reconsider the width of these words before the Bill goes to another place and to see whether it would not be sufficient to apply some such power as that under Clause 1 (1) to rifles at public meetings. However little the danger may be, it is rather an appalling thought that in the passage of this Bill we should authorise the carry ing of rifles at public meetings. It is rather outside what most people would imagine was intended to be the scope of the Bill, and one day it might be an unfortunate thing that it had been done.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Surely we are to have some answer from the Lord Advocate? When I read the Clause and heard the hon. and learned Gentleman I thought that it was satisfactory, but I admit that I had not considered the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).

9.12 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Of course, I am only too happy to give an answer if the House wishes me to do so. I will consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in case it be the fact that the terms of the Amendment, which are designed to achieve one object, may open the door wide in other directions. The House will appreciate that when we


are dealing with a Measure in which we are imposing restrictions on liberty in the interests of the community it is difficult to touch the balance without tilting it too far in another direction. All these apprehensions, from whichever quarter they come, are gratefully received and carefully examined. I cannot say more at the moment in relation to this particular criticism. With reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly), I would remind him that in Clause 4 we are in a different atmosphere from that of Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 4 is not concerned with political processions, meetings, or organisations, but with any public meeting or any public procession. Therefore, the reference to the Lord Mayor's Show, which I used as an example, was quite adequate to the point.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 4 was designed to prevent certain types of persons from getting into trouble because they, accidentally perhaps, attended a public meeting or stopped to watch a public procession while carrying certain accoutrements which they were authorised to carry. It is perfectly obvious that if one exercises a vivid enough imagination one can conjure up remarkable pictures of the possibility of a public meeting attended by all the members of a fire brigade, with their equipment—axes and all the rest of it.

Mr. BEVAN: The reference to a fire brigade rather misstates the position. Surely a rifle corps would be a much more apposite case, because Fascists could all join a rifle corps and then go along to a meeting with their rifles in their hands. They could not all join a fire brigade, because they would not be allowed to join.

The LORD ADVOCATE: Perhaps there are members of other political organisations which might want to join a fire brigade. I can assure the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol that his suggestions will be carefully examined.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I did not hear the beginning of the Debate on this Amendment, but I see no reason why the Amendment should be pressed. I apologise to the House, but I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman who so sorrowfully shakes his head that on the Report stage we have had to fight against

the importation into this Bill of many things which, in our opinion, do violation to the outstanding feature of it which led us not to vote against it on Second Reading. We are gravely disturbed at some of the suggestions made this evening, and I see no reason why at this stage we should be asked to include this Amendment. If on reflection it occurs to the Government that the Amendment is necessary there is another place in which it can be inserted, but I am quite sure from what my hon. Friends have told me —[An HON. MEMBER: "Nobody has told you anything."] As hon. Members know, it is sometimes not possible to sit right through the Debate, but I have been here for a great part of the evening. It is not necessary for some of us who do not suffer under the advantages of the hon. Member, to have to hear all of the Debate, and we do understand here that the Government are suggesting an Amendment which can be taken advantage of by the very elements which they are out to suppress or, rather, to restrict, and no case has been made out for the inclusion of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(Amendment of 8 Edw. 7 c. 66.)

9.20 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, after "may," to insert:
if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting.
I think it is the experience of all of us that occasions arise when those who are on the platform and are either conducting the meeting or speaking do not desire that some critic in the audience should then and there be removed. Everyone must recall occasions when he has been tempted to say
"Do leave him alone; I want to deal with him." I am sure that the police will do their best, but, after all, the "policeman's lot is not a happy one," and if it should happen that he was proceeding to take steps which were really contrary to the wishes of the platform, I submit that that would scarcely be a proper way of applying the Public Meeting Act. 1 think there can be no doubt that we ought to put in the words "if requested so to do by the chairman." It may be asked, What is to happen if the meeting. has no chairman? I think the answer to that is that if it is desired that


the police should take the action we contemplate the meeting ought to have a chairman, because he is the person who is responsible for conduct and order, and in certain circumstances he would be entitled to the assistance of the officers. If I have read correctly reports in the Press of what happens at the meetings of the hon. Gentleman sitting below the Gangway, I think that he would wish that officers should take their part in seeing that order is kept.

Amendment agreed to.

9.22 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 1, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 9.
We wish to omit what I will not describe as Sub-section (4), because it was pointed out by the Chair in Committee that it is not Sub-section (4) of Clause 6, but it is lines 1 to 9 on that page, beginning with "(4)". Hon. Members who were present during the Debate in Committee will remember that this was the one point in the Bill where it certainly did appear that the view which the Government had been led to form was open to, and did receive, A pretty vigorous challenge from all quarters of the House. I do not say there was no one who agreed with the Government's view, but any supporters were utterly silent, and it is certainly the case that quite a number of hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side, thought that the argument which I put before the Committee for retaining these words did not justify their retention. I pointed out that a good deal of anxiety was entertained by those responsible at the idea that in certain circumstances it should be the duty of the police not only to render aid in the way provided for but themselves to initiate a prosecution. If these words are omitted, as we think they should be, and as I believe is the prevailing view of the House, that does not mean—not at all—that the police, as I see it, will undertake these prosecutions right and left in every case. I think it will have to be a plain case, and a severe case, to justify such action. I am wholly opposed to introducing the direct action of the police in cases which I do not think really call for that form of official prosecution.
The Amendment we have just made inserting the words "if requested so to do by the chairman of the meeting" may, perhaps, have a bearing on this point. Just as I think there should be no initial action by the constable unless the chairman of the meeting asks for it, so I think that the fact that he has asked for it and the constable, on consideration, thinks he should so far comply as to ask for a name and address, ought to mean this: If the case is a flagrant, outrageous case, which the police can properly regard as raising a public matter, no doubt they will prosecute; but if, on the other hand, it is a case which the police, after investigation and consideration, think to be a minor matter, I wish to give the plainest possible notice here that my conception of the wording of this Bill is that it will be for the promoters of the meeting to take their proper responsibility. Dealing with it in that way we have probably met the general sense of the community, and I hope it will get the approval of the House. I most sincerely hope that these Clauses will have a great effect, and I believe they will, in discouraging the sort of hooligan, gangster behaviour which everybody detests, and will be far more useful for the warnings which they give than for the consequences that will follow if they have to be put into force.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has decided on this course, which was supported in all parties on the last occasion when it came before us in Committee. I am prepared to agree that the matter needed careful thought. My hon. Friends here have given it careful attention, and we have come to the same conclusion as the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad also that he told us he does not think it will be necessary for the police to prosecute on every occasion when they might be able to do so. We have no wish for a large number of prosecutions to take place under this Clause; the fewer there are the better. The main point is that order should be preserved, and that the onus should not necessarily be placed on the promoters of a meeting to prosecute.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. B EVAN: All I would like to say is this: If the judges and magistrates


came to their decisions on the speeches delivered in this House and not on the language in the Bill, everything in the garden would be "all Sir Garnett," but, unfortunately, they have more regard for the language in the Bill than for the speeches in the House.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Eaforeement.)

9.29 p.m.

Mr. PICKTHORN: I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any person who commits an offence under section five of this Act shall be liable on sumary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding four months or to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to both such imprisonment arid fine.
Perhaps I may be allowed to speak on this Amendment and the next one which stands in my name—in page 6, line 20, to leave out "three," and to insert "four" together. The traditional way of protecting the subject in cases where there is a risk of his being charged with an offence that can hardly be defined has been his right to claim trial by jury. It has been particularly true where the offence was a verbal one, where were words alleged, blasphemous, seditious or defamatory. It is in such cases, where the offence cannot be exactly defined, that it is the more to be desired not only that justice should be done but that it should seem to be done, and that the common man should feel that he has the protection of the common mind, and will not be found guilty except by the verdict of 12 other common men. This principle has been followed in recent cases. In the Incitement to Disaffection Act, for instance, the penalty clause was altered to give the right to refuse summary jurisdicHon and demand trial by jury: and in the Air Navigation Act. It seems to me that this Amendment is particularly desirable in connection with Clause 5, where the matter is a matter of words. It is already there in Clause 2. I think it on the whole desirable for Clauses 1 and 4.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.32 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: While appreciating what my hon. Friend has said, we would ask the House not to accept this Amendment. The object of Clause 5 is to provide an expeditious

method of dealing with threatening, abusive or insulting words with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. If there were imported into that Clause some element such as that which it is necessary to prove in the case of seditious libel, the position would be different. But Clause 5 follows a Clause already enforced by magistrates in the Metropolitan districts, and is similar to other Clauses which exist in other parts of the country. There may be offences under the Clause of a minor character, or offences which would justify the imposition of the maximum penalty. In our view it would be wrong for every person charged with that offence to have the right to claim trial by jury. The Bill as it stands imposes a heavier penalty and gives the right to trial by jury under Clause 2, because that is clearly a much more serious offence. In respect of other offences that can be committed under this Bill, and to which my hon. Friend's Amendments refer, in our view it would not be wise to increase the penalty so as to give the right to trial by jury in every case. There is a right of appeal from the petty sessions to quarter sessions, and we feel that we have so framed these offences as to make them appropriate for being dealt with in that way. The House will do well not to accept the Amendment, and I suggest that my hon. Friend might reconsider the matter, and. not press it.

Mr. PICKTHORN: In view of what the learned Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Application, to Scotland.)

9.36 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(4) The power conferred on the sheriff by Sub-section (5) of Section two, as modified by the last foregoing paragraph, shall not be exercisable by an honorary sheriff-substitute.
This Amendment is put forward in order to fulfil an undertaking which I gave upon the Committee stage, that the powers in relation to search warrants should be exercised only by salaried full-time sheriffs and not by the honorary sheriffs-substitute.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: May I ask the Lord Advocate whether this means that the sheriff-substitute will be in the same position as the sheriff-principal? Will he 'have the same power and be able to exercise the same discretion? I do not think it necessary to give an illustration, because I am sure that the Lord Advocate knows what I mean. The sheriff-substitute and the sheriff-principal in Dumbartonshire are both the same, in this respect.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I would reply to the hon. Member by saying that the powers of the Clause in question will normally be exercised by the sheriffs-substitute, that is, by full-time salaried sheriffs-substitute. The purpose of the Amendment is to prohibit the honorary sheriffs from dealing with this matter. Normally the sheriffs-principal will not come into the picture at all.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 11, leave out paragraph (6).—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation, etc.)

9.39 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert:
Private premises' means premises to which the public have access (whether on payment or otherwise) only by permission of the owner, occupier, or lessee of the premises.
This is a consequential Amendment, as the principle has already been discussed.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Might we have an explanation of this Amendment? I do not think that it has been discussed. The next one has.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This definition is in connection with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend with regard to stewards. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that the Clause with regard to the organisation of stewards refers to the preservation of order at any public meeting on any private premises. If you have a private meeting in a public place, different questions arise, and although they might not have been fully discussed, the Amendment is really consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 27, at the end, insert:
Recognised corps ' means a rifle club, miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by a Secretary of State under the Firearms Acts, 1920 to 1936, for the purposes of those Acts."—[The Attorney-General.]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 7, line 27, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(2) The powers conferred by this Act on the Attorney-General may, in the event of a vacancy in the office or in the event of the Attorney-General being unable to act owing to illness or absence, be exercised by the Solicitor-General.
This is an Amendment which provides that in the absence of the Attorney-General, or because of a vacancy in that office, the Solicitor-General may act. There are precedents for a provision of this kind in a considerable number of Acts, and it is desirable that those precedents should be followed, especially where the presence of the Attorney-General is necessary at proceedings already started.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Short title and extent.)

9.42 p.m.

Sir. J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.
I hope that it may be possible, when we have carried the Third Reading of the Bill to-night, to get the Bill dealt with in another place promptly. It is desirable that it should be carried into law without delay, but it would not be right to say that it should come into law the moment the Royal Assent is given. There must be time, if it be only a week or two, for the Measure to be printed and circulated to magistrates and for a circular to be senj to chief officers of police with an explanation of some of the Clauses. Then there will have to be the instructions of individual members of the Force. I hope that hon. Members will agree that 1st January will be an appropriate date to make this New Year's gift to those who require this legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

9.44 p.m.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: We have now reached the last stage of the Public Order Bill. On these benches we have co-operated with the Government, both in promoting and in amending the Bill, and we shall support it on its Third Reading, if indeed it goes to a Division. We have taken this course not because we desire in any way to weaken the liberties of the people of the country. Our position in that respect is well known. On the contrary, we wish to extend the liberties which we at present enjoy. We have no desire to limit the rights of minorities; we recognise that public meeting, demonstration and procession are part of the life blood of a free people, and essential elements of Democracy. The reason why we have taken the action that we have with regard to this Bill is that we believe its provisions to be necessary in order to deal with an evil which has only recently arisen. We regret that necessity, as I am sure hon. Members in all parts of the House do, but difficulties demand remedies from time to time, even though those remedies may sometimes be not very pleasant to take.
Even in this House there wag a time when some of our present expedients were unknown, when there was no Closure and Guillotine, and Members had the right to talk upon each Measure as long as they liked. The advantages of that method will, I think, have been apparent from our debates on this Bill. There has been no factious opposition to the Bill, and I think the debates have been exceedingly interesting and illuminating. The Government have been very accommodating, and in a number of cases where we have put forward and proved our claim, as we have, for an alteration in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has met us, and I believe he will agree that the Bill has been very much improved as a result of such modification as it has received from all parts of the House. Of course, however, there came a time in the development of this House when that method of allowing Members to talk as much as they pleased became difficult to continue, owing to definite obstruction, and then the Closure and the Guillotine had to be introduced.
There is no doubt about the provocation which has made it necessary to take some action in regard to the events that have been happening in the country. Only a

few months ago there was the meeting in Edinburgh to which I have already drawn the attention of the House while we were discussing one of the Clauses of the Bill on Report, and only two or three days ago in London, at a meeting of the body which we have in mind in this Bill, the most abusive language, likely to bring about a serious breach of the peace, was used. I do not think that the passing of this Bill into law and its coming into operation at the beginning of next year is any too early to stop the very dangerous proceedings which, even to-day, are going on. Some of us had supposed that the powers of the Home Secretary were great enough to enable him to deal with these people even under the existing law, but the Home Secretary has considered that his powers were inadequate, and that it was necessary that they should be extended in order to prevent the abuses which have been going on. The contributions we have made by the Amendments which we have put forward have not been intended in any way to weaken the effective powers conferred upon the executive by the Bill for dealing with the menace with which we have been confronted, but they have been directed, I think effectively, to lessening the possibilities of abuse which there may be under the Bill. Only recently the Lord Advocate referred to an instance where, in widening the Bill in one direction, he found that he had widened it too far in another, and, of course, that difficulty has confronted, not only Members on the Front Government Bench, but Members in all parts of the House. Cases have occurred in which, when it was sought to improve the powers of the Bill in order to prevent abuse, other necessary powers for dealing with the evil were infringed upon, and when attempts to control the mischief rendered the Bill liable to do things in the direction of curtailment of liberties which I think none of us, with one or two possible exceptions here and there, could possibly wish to see carried through.
It is only fair to the Home Secretary to say that we have not found him reluctant to make modifications in the Bill which the House as a whole would wish to see. He has adopted Amendments which Members in some parts of the House recognise as essential for the preservation of liberties in this country, and I fully believe it is his intention to operate the Bill in the same spirit in which he has con-


ducted the debates on it in this House. I am sure that he more than anyone else will recognise that it is not his good faith that is in question when I say it is necessary to have a Measure which not merely can be defended in this House, but which will act without curtailment of liberties when it comes to be put into operation. Naturally, the Home Secretary cannot expect to remain in that position for ever. Perhaps in this Government, and certainly in future Governments, we shall have other Home Secretaries, and we have, therefore, to provide within the limits of the Bill itself a Measure which is not open to great abuse. I do not pretend for a moment, and I do not think the Home Secretary will pretend, that this Bill is entirely abuse-proof; there never has been a Measure which cannot be abused if people set out to use it improperly, and this Bill is certainly no exception to the rule.
Personally, I am not afraid of abuse of the Bill in regard to any substantial minority. There are in the proceedings of the courts and in the proceedings of this House a large number of natural safeguards where there is a minority sufficiently considerable and sufficiently vocal to call for the protection of their rights. But there is always a danger that, when you come to an inconsiderable minority, and particularly at times of public stress when large masses of opinion move in one direction, that the essentials of liberty may be called in question; and it is our duty here and now, in framing the provisions of this Bill, to see that they are of such a character that the dangers at those times will be reduced to the smallest dimensions. It is for that reason that I think we have done well in putting in all the safeguarding Amendments that have been made. If there does arise a Government that abuses the provisions of this Bill, no doubt all of us here to-day who have taken part in carrying the Bill through will be blamed, but the responsibility will be a very heavy one upon any Government that uses the provisions of the Bill to abuse or restrict public liberty, for it will be a greater attack upon democracy even than the attack which is being launched to-day by the forces which we are seeking to control by this Measure and which is due to the introduction of foreign elements and foreign conceptions

of public life into our British democracy which we cherish in this country.
There are only two or three further words that I should like to say. Nearly at the end of the Debate on the Report stage we dealt with a Clause in which we gave even wider powers to the police than the right hon. Gentleman originally proposed in. his Bill. That shows, I think that in all parts of the House there is at the present time very considerable confidence in the right use of power by the police, and I believe that that is the view of the public. I am not saying, of course, and I do not think anyone would say, that there are not black sheep in the police force. For that reason we have always to be careful as to the powers that we give to the police. Though I believe it is a view shared by all sections of the House that the police act fairly in the matters that come before them, of course the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it is necessary, above all, not to give the police too wide powers, and to watch very carefully how they carry out the very extensive powers to which we add from time to time and which we 'are increasing even in this Bill.
The Clause dealing with processions is one to which we have given a great deal of time, I think rightly, because there we are introducing new powers and new rights of restriction which are, so far as I know, unknown up to the present in British law. Therefore, it is of great importance that we should watch those additional powers of restriction very carefully in giving them to the executive. In Committee I urged upon the right hon. Gentleman the need of scrutinising most carefully to see whether Amendments could be put down to limit and safeguard those powers. He was not able to do that, and we ourselves, as well as Members of the Liberal party, put down Amendments most of which the Government did not see their way to accept, but I am glad that they accepted one Amendment definitely limiting the period for which processions could be banned. That has introduced a very important safeguard into the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman was not present. The Lord Advocate said he did not particularly like the Amendment, but, if there was a very considerable opinion in the House, he would not press his opposition, and he afterwards saw fit to accept it.
Although the Home Secretary has not introduced any Amendments further to safeguard the law with regard to processions, he has promised us one thing for which I thank him. He has said that, in sending his instructions to the police, he will word them so as to make it quite clear that Clause 3 (2) is only to be used in very exceptional circumstances. That is a very important point and, even although his instructions only bind himself, yet they set a precedent which, I hope, will be followed by those who come after him. I think hon. Members opposite were in some cases rather surprised to find that we supported them in our desire to have order kept at public meetings. They were under the impression that there was nothing that we loved more than to have their meetings broken up, and they were rather surprised to find, what is in fact the case, that we particularly dislike their meetings broken up. We think that their arguments are so weak ani ineffective that, the more they are heard, the more they will be disliked and discredited by the electors. So we have joined, and will continue to join, with them in any steps that will really be effective in preventing public meetings being broken up in that way.
I come to Clause 5, which deals with
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace.
It is important for the House to realise that those words are not new. They reproduce words in Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. They have rather a checkered history because, though their meaning apparently would be perfectly clear, there have been cases where the use of them has been strained. I refer to arrests of women on the streets—not necessarily what are known as common prostitutes. That Section of the Act has been put into operation in many cases quite improperly b y stretching those words far beyond their meaning. In fact this was admitted by a Home Office witness before a committee that sat on this question. In their report they expressed their strong conviction that the Section ought not to be invoked in this case.
There are two points that I want to draw from that statement of fact. The first is a narrow one with regard to this particular offence and the arrests by the

police of women on the streets. I trust that the Home Secretary will not, particularly after the objection raised by the Committee, use the wider powers that he has under the Bill to stretch the words out of all their meaning. I want also to stress the wider point that arises as a moral out of the facts that I have been narrating. It is clear that, with the connivance of the magistrates, the old provision was stretched out of all its meaning in regard to these particular persons. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that for the purpose that we have been considering in the course of these Debates these words shall be strictly interpreted wherever they are employed, not merely against women taken in the streets but in all cases where they are invoked to deal with possible offenders.
It seems to me that everything in regard to this Bill turns upon the way it is administered. The Home Secretary has already promised on Clause 3 to issue instructions fairly and properly so that effect should be given by the police to the intentions that we here have expressed. I feel confident that he will undertake to do that not merely on Clause 3 but on all the Clauses and to the Bill as a whole, because if he starts off the administration of the Act in the right spirit we may hope that it will achieve the purpose for which we have promoted it and will not achieve other purposes to which we are violently opposed. If the administration of this Act were to be carried out in a way foreign to the spirit of our Debates in this House, I am sure that a great number of people who have contributed to the passage of this Bill would be deeply grieved and disappointed. I, therefore, support the Third Reading of the Bill, and I ask the Home Secretary to respond to the points which I have made in the spirit in which I have put them forward.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: It has been a strange spectacle, as this Bill has passed through its various stages in this House, to see Members of the most diverse political views vying with one another in evolving ingenious limitations of individual lberty. I think that the explanation of it is that we have all been conscious of the fact that in the cause of liberty, as in the cause of every other good thing, it is best cheerfully to give up a little if you can thereby make sure of retaining the


greater part. I think that the restrictions laid down in the Bill have been agreed to by this House for that reason. With regard to the militarisation of politics, which was, I suppose, the prime reason for the introduction of the Bill, there are two propositions to which, I think, probably everybody in the House will agree. One is that the King's Army shall be kept out of politics, and the other is that in this country we will not tolerate any army other than the King's Army, and it is the second of those two propositions with which we have been particularly concerned in this Bill, and which I hope we have secured the more firmly by the Bill.
It is true that there is another side to the Bill. Advantage has been taken of it to put in certain provisions, which, we hope, will secure a wider extent of free speech in this country, by securing a wider extent of fair hearing for speakers. No doubt it is too much to hope that the mere passage of this Bill will remove from this country all the follies of Fascism and Communism, and doubtless it is too much to expect that by the passage of this Bill it will be possible in every division in the country for people of every political view to get a fair hearing, but at any rate we hope that we shall have accomplished something towards both these purposes. If the temper of the House during the passage of the Bill is a criterion of the way in which the Bill will be administered, we have shown to the outer world that whatever may happen in Russia, in Italy or in Germany, we in this country have not yet lost the capacity for governing ourselves and that we do not yet require any dictators to help us to do it.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I would not like this Bill to pass from the House without offering one or two observations upon it. The hon. Gentleman opposite and one or two others have talked about the way in which Members of all parties have vied with one another to place the Measure upon the Statute Book. I did not think that I had done anything that could rightly be described as vying. I frankly admit that I have not put up the hostile objection to it that I might have done in other circumstances. I, in common with a great many other people, for

reasons that are perhaps good or perhaps not good, would like a crack at the Fascists. I say that, not because of their particular form of organisation nor their particular method of propaganda, but simply because their views are at the opposite political pole to mine. I do not know whether that is a good motive, but in not putting up an opposition to the Bill I and my colleagues on these benches have very grave doubts and many misgivings about an Act of this kind coming on to the Statute Book. I do not want my politics vetted by the chief constable in a town or county in Great Britain that I know of, and certainly I do not want his local constable on the beat or his local sergeant to be the censor of what I am to do pclitically. It would he a very bad thing indeed if the Fascist regime came to power in this country and said that I was to do nothing at all. I do not know that I like the idea of the local constable telling me any more than I would like the idea of a dictator telling me.
Sometimes in this House when we attempt to evade the evils of dictatorship we are just in danger of imposing upon ourselves all the essential evils of dictatorship. I question very much whether the hope that I have in my mind in allowing this Measure to go on the Statute Book will be realised in practice. I have a fear that the Fascist party will make the necessary obeisance and carry on, but the law will be there, and those of us who are not so easily able to swing round into the other methods of expressing cur political point of view will find that this guillotine does not cut off the head that it is meant to cut off, but some others. I have been the subject of a political prosecution once or twice in the course of my life, and I think it is not being unfair to say that whenever the courts bring in other matters where political prejudices come in, there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. My colleague on my left asks me which am I. [An Hog. MEMBER: "Hon. Friend, not colleague."] I might say "comrade." The hon. Gentleman asks me what I am, rich or poor. I will tell the House quite frankly that I know that James Maxton, Member of this House, is more likely to be classed by a judge as rich than Janes Maxton, Socialist agitator outside, would have been.


When I use the term "rich," I mean that in these matters there are gradations of justice, and the fact that a man has some public standing as a Member of the House of Commons would mean that my treatment would be somewhat different from that of a fellow who holds my point of view but is merely a paid agitator. My chance of escaping the heaviest weight of the law would be much greater than his, and anyone who has had experience realises that that is so.
Hon. Members who have been immune from this sort of difficulty in their political life will perhaps get some idea of the position that one is in in these matters if they face up to the tremendous agitation that has grown up among middle and upper class people in recent months about the unfairness of the courts in dealing with motoring cases. I am very glad that these cases are happening so widely and so frequently, because for the first time a large proportion of middle-class peaple are realising how absolutely helpless the ordinary citizen is in going into court if he is up against two police witnesses. Through the whole of this legislation our political activities are liable to be at the mercy of two police witnesses. It is a very serious thing if the organised State, as represented by the law courts, the Home Secretary and the police force is going to decide in what way men and women in this country shall express the political beliefs that they have. It means that we are coming near to the idea of the one party State, the very thing that, presumably, this Measure is out to fight against. I have had no enthusiasm for the Measure, but I have not had the hostility towards it that I should have lad if it had been presented in the abstract without the concrete position of anti-Fascism being connected with it. If it had been brought down as an abstract Measure I should have been completely hostile to it at every stage, and I am very dubious 'to-night whether this House is doing the right thing in allowing the Measure to go to the Statute Book.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I think everybody will agree with the hon. Member in disliking and distrusting the effect of this Bill. I should think that no Bill has ever been passed, as this will be passed, without a vote against it, which

was so intensely disliked. The reason why we are going to allow the Bill to go through is solely because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. I am one of those who joined in asking the Home Secretary to take action after the events in East London. Until the Sunday I had hoped that those events which did take place would not take place. I hoped that it would have been possible to have brought the situation through without the disturbance that followed, but everyone in East London knows that the conditions were such that anything short of the precautions that were taken would have resulted probably in bloodshed and death. Therefore most people thought that we must come to the Home Office and ask that a Bill of this kind should be brought forward.
We have the Bill. It is a Bill not only to deal with processions but with public meetings. In regard to public meetings I should like to say that throughout my life in East London we have had disturbances at public meetings, sometimes by my friends and sometimes by others. Sometimes I have been the victim and sometimes my opponent has been the victim; sometimes both of us have been the victims. I have been locked in a public office all night on two occasions, but the difference between those conditions and the conditions which we are up against today is that we all knew, my Conservative opponent and myself, that the people who disturbed our meetings were suffering from poverty, privation and social misery. Few of us lost our temper, except perhaps for a very short time, and we have often walked home together after a nice break-up of our meeting because there was a sort of comradeship between us which enabled us to understand the reason for the action which was taken against us.
To-day we are up against something entirely different. We have a situation where men come from other parts of London and pursue a vindictive policy of racial and so-called religious hatred which is foreign to anything I have ever experienced in the East of London or anywhere else. It was clear that unless this was taken in hand and stopped in some way there was an end to any democratic organisation, certainly in the East of London. That is the reason why for my


part I welcome the fact that the House of Commons has supported the Home Secretary in this manner. But I want to say to the Home Secretary that what the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said is perfectly true. The success or failure of this Bill will depend absolutely on how it is administered. I should not like to say a single word against any police authority in London or against any police constable in London or anywhere else, but I should like to say to the Home Secretary that there is a strong feeling in the East of London that the police do not treat Fascist demonstrations and Fascist speeches in the same manner as they treat Communist, and Socialist speeches and demonstrations. Whether that feeling is correct or not I cannot say, but I am sure that feeling is abroad in East London. There is also the feeling that when this Bill becomes law, the people who will suffer most will not be those who provoked the House of Commons into passing this Bill, but the? others who, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, belong to the poor.
I make a very earnest appeal to the Home Secretary to take this question into consideration again, especially the question of speeches at meetings. The speeches made in Bow, Poplar and Bethnal Green by the Fascists, if made by Communists or Socialists or, as in the days of the suffragette agitation, by people such as myself, would have caused proceedings to be taken against them. I hope the Home Secretary will send his note-takers to the Fascist meetings as religiously as was the custom in the days of the suffragettes and during the whole of the unemployed agitation in London. When I remember those days and think of what people such as myself were charged with some years ago, and then think of the utterances that form the usual propaganda that is carried on in East London, I cannot help feeling that there is some justification for saying that there is one kind of administration for the Fascists and another for the other people.
The open-air meetings are held in a very provocative manner. Men march down from the other end of London, or from somewhere else; there are great flaring head-lights, and loud-speakers

screech out some of the most outrageous statements about the Jews. I am sure this House agrees that there is no crime in being born a Jew. None of us chooses his parents or his nationality. I think it is time there was a really determined effort by the authorities to deal with the question of provocative language at open-air meetings and at indoor meetings. I am not afraid of disturbances at our own meetings now. I am sure there will be no prosecutions, for the presence of only one policeman in a great crowded meeting nearly always silences the opposition. What I am afraid of is that outside there will not be a fair and equitable holding of the balance between the two parties which, if this Bill is to be successful, must be the case. I will not detain the House any longer, except to say that I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this Bill, and that I and my friends in the East End will be still more grateful to him if he and the Commissioner of Police for London see and insist that as between Socialists, Communists and Labour people and the Fascists there is a fair, just and equitable holding of the balance.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. PETHEICK: There has been, so far in the Debates on this Measure, an almost heavenly unison in the political orchestra. It is true that some, like the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, have been a little flat and others have been a little sharp, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) put his foot through the big drum, but the only effect of that was that he was unable to beat it, and it is the fact that there has been a measure of unanimity in favour of this Bill. I desire to put forward one or two considerations which have not, I think, been voiced up to the present, at any rate in the form in which I propose to put them. On the whole, I welcome the Bill, but I do not think that this first Clause is needed, and I regard it as somewhat reactionary in character. I can understand, and indeed applaud, the motives of the Government in putting in this uniform Clause, but in this connection I would quote the words used by Cardinal Morton in 1488, which might have been used by the Home Secretary in introducing this Measure:
His Grace (that is the King) saith, that it is not the blood spilt in the field which


will save the blood in the city; nor the marshal's sword that will set this kingdom in perfect peace; but that the true way is to stop the seeds of sedition and rebellion at the beginning, and for that purpose to devise, confirm and quicken good and wholesome laws against riots and unlawful assemblies of people, and all combinations and confederacies of them by liveries, tokens and other badges of factious dependence.
That quotation from an eminent Archbishop of Canterbury seems to me to be very apposite to our present discussions. To-night we are giving a Third Reading to a Bill which goes back 450 years for its sanction. Are we wise at this juncture in accepting the first Clause of the Bill? As I said, I can understand its motive. It is the practice with which I do not find myself in agreement. It has been curious in these Debates to note hon. Members of both sections of the Opposition, who bitterly opposed the Incitement to Disaffection Act joining with the Government in welcoming this Clause. They, of course, accepted the Bill because of this Clause which is directed, so they say, against the Fascists. If they opposed the Incitement to Disaffection Act on the ground of interference with the liberty of the subject, how much more should they oppose this Clause, which is a far greater interference with the liberty of the subject? The offence under the Incitement to Disaffection Act was an offence against His Majesty's Forces, which is an offence against all the men, women and children of the country who depend on His Majesty's Forces to protect them in time of war.
I do not wish, however, to engage in controversy with hon. Members opposite but to explain the point on which I am somewhat hostile to at least a part of the Bill. I am not a revolutionary by nature, and consequently I have not much sympathy with the authors of the French Revolution, but they did achieve one thing. They defined liberty better than it has ever been defined before or since. They held that liberty consisted in doing that which did not harm somebody else. I claim that the mere fact of wearing a black shirt, a green shirt, or any other form of shirt does not do the slightest harm to anybody else in any way at all. It is merely the fact of disorders arising as a result of the activities of the people who wear those shirts which may cause trouble. I will endeavour to prove that statement. The Greenshirts have been

mentioned during these discussions. The Greenshirts, as we all know, are a perfectly harmless and estimable body of men who profess some vague and obscure financial panacea which hardly anybody in this country understands. They do not injure anybody at all, except possibly to inflict a certain amount of mental disturbance on their hearers, but nobody could possibly say that otherwise they are anything but perfectly harmless.
Therefore, the mere fact of wearing this uniform does not do any harm at all. It is merely the disorder which may arise in consequence of the activities of these people, either Blackshirts or Greenshirts, which may conceivably inflict some injury on the people. I would say that, if any body of men wearing black shirts or any other sort of shirt think that by the mere wearing of these extremely unbecoming uniforms they are able to persuade the law-abiding people of this country that they are more capable of governing this country because of the wearing of these uniforms than those who merely wear a tail coat or a lounge suit, good luck to them, and let them try, but do not let us introduce archaic sumptuary laws against these extraordinary professions. Is it not better to allow the good sense of the people to destroy these foolish foreign fancies than to try to suppress them by the force of law?
We all agree that disorders, if they arise in consequence of the activities of the Blackshirts or others, ought to be suppressed, and, therefore, it seems to me that the proper action is to suppress these disorders through the existing law, and I would say that the existing law is quite sufficient to deal with any disorders which may arise in this way. I believe that for using obscene or abusive language you can get a penalty of five pounds, that if you assault a policeman you can get up to two years' imprisonment, that for malicious wounding you can get five years, and that in very grave cases you may get a life sentence. But what has happened? The fact is that where disorders have arisen recently in the East End the full penalty of the law has not been enforced. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that either the police or the magistrates in the East End have acted un fairly. I believe that they have done their best to be fair to all parties, but magistrates in some cases have had before


them persons accused of disorder and have said, "We take a very grave view of this offence, and you are bound over to keep the peace for six months." That is utterly useless. Where you have disorders and where Fascists fight Communists and the police are called in and then get assaulted, it is no good binding people over or fining them small sums.
An example should be made of them, and that you can do, I claim, under the existing law. An hon. Member might conceivably say to rne, "It is all very well to talk like that, but you are not a nervous Jew resident in the East End of London." That is true, but I have always understood that one of the chief virtues of our Parliamentary system is that we con- sist of 615 Members representing different divisions and parts of the country, and where one local community or a group of communities has a grievance, there are some 600 Members representing other divisions who can take a reasoned, fair, and dispassionate view of that particular grievance, which may be only local and purely ephemeral.
There is another aspect of this situation to which I should like to refer. As I understand it, when this Bill becomes an Act it will be illegal for Fascists wearing black shirts, in the event of trouble or projected trouble involving this country with Spain, to march to Hyde Park bearing banners saying, "Hands off Franco." It will, however, be legal for a procession of Communists to march to Hyde Park with red ties and red rosettes with banners saying, "Hands off Caballero." I do not think that that is in accordance with our best ideas of English justice. I went the other day to the Gaiety Theatre and saw a play in which Mr. Leslie Henson and some of his colleagues dealt faithfully and excellently, according to what is my idea of the British method of treatment, with the various would-be dictators and wearers of coloured shirts. The method which Mr. Henson adopted in that admirable play was far more suitable and commendable than the method which the Government are adopting in this Bill. The Bill is, so far as the first Clause is concerned, a sign, not of panic —for there is no reason for that—but of light flurry. I believe in the ancient and honoured right of the Englishman to be allowed to make a fool of himself in his own way. While I intensely dislike

the theory of the Fascists and their methods, I would put in a plea for the liberties of Englishmen, including Fascists, even for that liberty which they themselves would deny to others.

42 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I would like to add a few words to the valedictory observations which have been made at this stage. When this Bill was introduced on Second Reading it seemed to my hon. Friend and me that there were certain clauseos which simply bristled with points to which we took objection. It is fair to acknowledge on the Third Reading that a great many of those points have been dealt with by the Government. The criticisms which we put forward have been met with a readiness and courtesy which we desire to acknowledge. There have been other respects in which the Government have not been so well advised, but I hope that when the Bill gets to another place they will not weary in well-doing. In one or two quarters recently the passage of this Bill through the House has been held up as a sort of object lesson to show how well the Parliamentary system can work. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary made that point in a speech outside the other day, and it was repeated in a different form by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I think that that is true, though in a rather different sense from that used by them.
When the Bill was first put before the House we all realised, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), that it was very skilfully drafted. That is no wonder, because we were given to understand that it was for the most part drafted by the Home Secretary. We all appreciated the skill with which it had been put together when it was first introduced, but, in spite of that, I think that nearly all of us, and I hope even the Ministers on the Front Bench, will acknowledge that now, after it has passed through the Report and Committee stages, it is a very much better Bill. That is what I mean by saying it is an admirable example of the working of Parliamentary procedure. Although none of us could compete with the Home Secretary in his skill as a draftsman, it goes to show the truth of the old saying that the House of Commons has very much more sense than any one Member of it.
But there are some features left in this Bill to which my hon. Friends and I still object. There is the search warrant Clause, particularly that part of it which makes it possible not only to search the premises concerned but anybody found on those premises. We still think that the powers contained in Clause 3, Sub-section (2), are very much wider than they need be. I still object to that Clause, because in spite of the fact that three separate entities have to be brought in, the chief of police in the first place, the local authority in the second and the Home Secretary in the third, it is still a purely executive Act, and the reasonableness of the apprehensions on which the Order is founded cannot be tried out in any tribunal. I am one of those who think, when we consider civil liberty in this country, that it. is in danger not from any obscure faction in black shirts or red shirts but, rather, from the growing power of the executive at the expense of the Law Courts and of this House.
It has been suggested in some quarters that we have been rather over-critical in our attitude to certain parts of the Bill. I would make no apology for that, because I think there is the danger in Parliamentary countries that the growth of Fascism may be made an excuse for restrictive legislation. I will give one example. Two years ago I visited one of the small States at the far end of the Baltic. There they have been threatened with a form of local Fascist movement. The members of it did not call themselves Fascists, but it had all the marks of a Fascist movement. They were threatening all the established parties and all the old gangs. After a time the movement grew to such alarming proportions that the Prime Minister of the day felt that emergency measures would be needed to deal with it. He therefore proceeded to suspend Parliarnent altogether, and it has remained suspended ever since, though being allowed, I think, to meet one day a year. He proceeded to sack the whole of his Ministers in all parties, and to put the permanent heads of the Departments in their place. He proceeded to gag the Press and to prohibit demonstrations, processions and public meetings of every kind. That is what has gone on for something over two years in that country, in order to resist the oncoming of Fascism. It is just an extreme example, but it serves to show

how fatal it is to try to treat Fascism by introducing Fascist measures.
That is why I always regard any Bill which proposes to restrict the rights of demonstration with considerable suspicion. Nevertheless, I want to say that my hon. Friends and I do recognise the necessity for the main parts of this Bill. We do appreciate that there are parts of the country, particularly in East London, where shirts of a certain colour have become something more than a means of expressing political views. They have been deliberately made the symbol of political and racial persecution. One realises how easy it is for violence to breed violence and persecution to beget persecution. As regards the suppression of private armies, they always have been suppressed in our history and must always be suppressed as a necessary foundation of civil liberty. I would like to say one word in answer to the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). He first reminded us of our attitude on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. I do not know how close attention he paid to the Committee stage of this Bill, but he may have noticed that some of the Amendments we put down on this Rill were precisely the same as the Amendments we put down to the Incitement to Disaffection Bill two years ago, and that we resisted some of the Clauses of this Bill for precisely the same reasons as we resisted Clauses of the earlier Bill.

Mr. PETHERICK: Would the hon. Gentleman deny that the whole of the Opposition resisted a great deal of that Bill and also voted against it on Second and Third Reading?

Mr. FOOT: I quite agree, and we resisted it for this reason: We believed that that Bill would interfere with freedom of demonstration and freedom of speech in certain respects, and we have resisted all parts of this Bill which we think might encourage a similar interference. I do not know that any distinction can be drawn between our attitude then and our attitude now. The hon. Member went on to give a quotation from a Cardinal in the fifteenth century. He did not give the context, but I rather gathered that the speaker was referring to the suppression of private armies and the suppression of liveries. Surely the hon. Member and other hon. Members


will be aware that it was essential to suppress the liveries and the private armies before it was possible to have any civil liberty for the ordinary citizen in this country at all. There was one point which the hon. Gentleman raised which has been in the minds of a good many people. He was hot expressing sympathy with the Fascist movement, but he spoke of a march or a demonstration which might be held by the Fascists, and I gathered that his point of view was that you should not deal with the Fascists but with the people who try to stop them. I appreciate the force of that reasoning. If it is easily possible you ought not to prevent a demonstration or procession, but deal with the people who are opposing it. But though in some cases it may be fine distinction, I think there may be a very real distinction.
I happen to represent a city where we have had quite considerable experience of that form of rowdyism of which the Fascists complain. For many years there have been certain elements who have made it their duty to howl down almost every political candidate. They started that habit with the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and they are still keeping it up, and at the last two elections and between elections, when I have not had sufficiently loud amplifiers at my meetings, I have had the experience of not being able to say one single word. It has been impossible to make a speech at all. I agree with the hon. Member that I have never known whether the votes I have received at an election came from people who heard my arguments or people who were prevented from hearing them. Although I have had that experience again and again, and although there has been every sign of marked hostility on the part of a certain section of the electors, I have never during two elections and over five years been offered any kind of physical violence or physical resistance. But there is no doubt that if the Blackshirt movement were to go to that part of the country they would encounter that violence and that resistance. The distinction is between those who do and those who do not go out looking for trouble. We believe that the main objects of the Bill were necessary to be secured, and for that reason, in spite of many criticisms we have had to make, we support it. We hope that when

the Bill comes into operation the apprehensions that have been expressed will prove to have been ill-founded.

10.56 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BLAIR: I support the Third Reading of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced I had the horrible idea that we were being asked to legislate in respect of a party that had no representation in this House, but having heard the wonderful explanations by the right hon. Gentleman I have entirely changed my opinion. Even to-day, he has very much improved the Bill; I refer particularly to Clause 6. Hon. Members may have forgotten that I had the honour of representing Bow and Bromley for ten long years, and for those years neither I nor my party, at any open meeting, had ever a chance of saying a single word. The late Sir Alfred Yeo had a far worse time in the south part of the borough than I had, but we never called in a policeman at any meetings. I found that it was very much better to show up the intolerance of my opponents than to call in a policeman. That applied not only to political meetings but to others. Things have changed now. I am very surprised to know that my opponents now call in policemen, and for their benefit I am very glad that the Bill is passing. I thoroughly support the Third Reading.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. GALLAGHER: When the Bill is passed I may have some difficulty in keeping out of gaol. When the Bill gets into operation, I hope I shall have the responsibility of raising many cases and putting many questions to the Home Secretary. I would draw attention to the fact that the Bill is supposed to have been brought into being as a consequence of the events in the East End of London. The party to which I belong called upon the people to turn out and to prevent the Fascists from passing into the Jewish streets. What the right hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has said, is correct; if the Fascists had passed into the Jewish streets there would have been not only serious injuries but dead. If those people had gone into those streets with their vile insults to the Jews, nobody could have stopped some bloody tragedies from taking place. When we called upon the workers to prevent that vile provocation from taking place, we


were acting in the interests of peace and of Democracy. [Laughter.] Do hon. Members not understand that? To allow the Fascists to go into the streets and commit all kinds of brutalities against the Jews—is that encouraging Democracy? We did a good act, but the Bill, as I have said, is being used to do the work that Mosley is concerned with, limiting and attacking the rights of the working class. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) talked about what happens in the law courts. Many hon. and right hon. Members in this House have been in the law courts, but they have been at the dispensing end. When I was in court I have been absolutely astounded at the ease with which a jury can be got to bring in a verdict of "Guilty." When I was at the High Court in Edinburgh before a jury, a reverend gentleman, a friend of the right hon. Member for Stirling Burghs (Mr. Johnston), said the case was so feeble that I was sure to get off. I said I was not, and he offered to bet me a shilling that I would get off. I bet him a shilling, and I won the shilling. [An HON. MEMBER.: "Did he pay you?"] Oh, yes, I got the shilling. I know that when a revolutionary goes into court, and is presented with a jury of small business men, you have only to look at the horror on their faces when Bolshevism is mentioned. You know how many of you feel yourselves when you hear the word "Bolshevism"; you cannot understand that it represents the greatest advance that human society has experienced. Hon. Members say that Russia, Germany and Italy cannot look after themselves, that we can look after them; but the workers and peasants of Russia have been looking after themselves for the past 17 years without any capitalists, and they have a Constitution which is newly passed—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to object to the attack that is made on disturbance at public meetings. The experience of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is a natural refusal to allow him to speak. If I had been in Dundee and had had any influence, I should have used my influence to get him a hearing; I have done it many times; but I contend that the public who go to a meeting have as much right to protest against what the speaker is saying as to cheer what he is saying, and

if policemen go to public meetings they should not only be watching the poor unfortunate workers who are there, but should be watching the speakers. When a public speaker or leader from the ranks of the National Government goes to South Wales or Jarrow and talks about the restoration of prosperity to people who have not had a day's work for years, who cannot get food or clothing, and are having their lives worried out of them, have they not the right to protest? I object to the giving of the further powers tp the police to interfere at public meetings.
I was at Cardiff one day at an open meeting in the street. The miners could not gather round because a policeman stood in front of me in the middle of the road. I spoke for 20 minutes. Suddenly I discovered that there was a big fellow at my side wearing a rainproof, but with a policeman's uniform under it and a big cigar in his mouth. He said, "That will do to finish up." The sergeant and the other fellow came up and they got very friendly. I had to adopt a very strong attitude towards them. He told me he had told the chairman he would be allowed 20 minutes for a public meeting. I said, "If you have anything to say to the chairman say it, but do not interrupt the meeting." I went on with the meeting for an hour after that. The local fellows got very self-confident because we carried through the meeting, and the next week they had another. Nine were arrested and fined. That can go on now. It goes on all over the country—interference of every kind—and this Bill is going to strengthen it. It is a very dangerous Bill, and no one can justify such an attitude as we have had expressed to-night. We will sacrifice a bit of democracy to get a benefit of some kind, though what the benefit is I am not quite sure. It is utterly unjustifiable and indefensible. It is bound to destroy democracy and not strengthen it. Never in any circumstances should the House be prepared to adopt such an attitude. It should aim all the time at strengthening and extending democracy. If you are going to put an end to militarism in politics, the way to do it is not to weaken democracy but to strengthen it. I am very bitterly opposed to most of the Bill, and I shall have reason later on, I expect, to show my opposition arising out


of many cases that will take place under the law.

11.8 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member has told us a most entertaining story about a policeman with a uniform underneath a raincoat and a cigar on top who, at a particular moment, and perhaps prematurely, said it was time to finish up. I think the House feels that it is time now to finish up the Debate. It will be necessary for me to make a few valedictory observations. First I should like to thank Members in all parts of the House for their co-operation, and for the consideration that they have shown to those responsible for the conduct of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) said this was a strange sort of Bill for here we are, all more or less helping to pass it, at any rate not violently opposing it, and yet it is a Bill in a sense which we all dislike. That is quite true. I had far rather there 'was no need to bring in such a Measure. I think that is a feeling that we all share and it has made us do our best to see that it contains, as far as we can secure it, the necessary safeguards and precautions.
It is true, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said, that this is a case in which we are trying to devise what he called ingenious limitations of liberty—agreeing upon certain restrictions in order to preserve the substance of liberty as a whole. I think that that is a perfectly just account of what we have been trying to do, and it has been done by the general co-operation of the House.
One of the most remarkable features in our discussions has been that the whole House has been deeply interested in this very important subject, and yet the immediate crying need for some of this legislation is really only felt in a very limited number of constituencies. It is very creditable to the House of Commons that when a grievance is actually felt in a limited number of areas, it is a matter to which the House as a whole feels it to be its duty to give consideration. I hope that the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) does not mind if I do not quite agree with him in his description of this Bill

as being merely concerned in trying to prohibit by law what he called these foolish foreign fancies. Cornwall is a very long way from the East End of London, and it reminds me of Ripling's:
The Toad under the Harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes;
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to the toad.
We have here to consider the case in which there is a real danger to be averted, a real injustice to be corrected and a real security to be afforded. It has to be done by the House as a, whole. We most of us in our own constituencies and our own experiences are not immediately concerned with these troubles which press so hardly upon our fellow-citizens. In the same way I think the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth in his most entertaining quotation from Cardinal Morton in the year 1488 made a very curious selection, because surely what Cardinal Morton was urging was that there should be a prohibition of liveries. I should have thought, I must confess, that liveries in the Fifteenth Century were what we are meaning by uniforms in this Bill. I know that uniform has not been defined, and I have very carefully abstained from the temptation presented to any ingenious mind, to illuminate by exposition or illustration, which would have been a very dangerous thing to do.
Now that the Bill is through as far as this House is concerned, I will offer my one and only illustration of the subject. I think that the courts have been accustomed to say, when they have to interpret the wording in a Statute without the assistance of a definition clause, that they must give to it its ordinary meaning as ascertained by its use in literature and speech, having regard always to the subject matter of the particular Statute. There is a passage in English literature in which this interesting word appears in very limiteci context. Once or twice when I heard some hon. Gentlemen speculate whether a button or rosette or flower was uniform, I whispered to myself the words which occur in "Patience":
When I first put this uniform on.
I said, as I looked in the glass,
It is one to a million
There's not a civilian
My figure or form can surpass.


I cannot believe that the character in that admirable play who thus gestured before the mirror would be attired in uniform if he had on nothing more than a button.

Mr. MAXTON: There is another quotation:
He goes down Piccadilly,
With a poppy or a lily,
In his mediaeval hand.

Sir J. SIMON: That was another character. It is not the character who sings this song but I agree that it is a very proper reference. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made a speech, very charming in its reservations, as his speeches always are, but it was not a speech which showed that he had paid very close attention to the provisions of the Bill. It was couched in such exceedingly mild terms that I do not feel greatly alarmed when he tells us that he fears this Bill is riveting upon this country the evils of dictatorship. The Bill is the work of a free Parliament. In this country almost alone of any country in the world the police are liable to be brought into the ordinary courts of law at the suit of an ordinary citizen, and nobody can prevent that being done. This Bill in every part contains those precautions and provisions which the wisdom of the House has thought fit and proper for securing that this shall not be a piece of dictatorship on the continental model, but, on the contrary, shall be administered under the open light and challenge of the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend said a thing which I am always sorry to hear, and I hope he will forgive me if I make one observation upon it. He used a well worn cliche, when he might have provided us with something fresh from the mint of his own mind. He proceeded to recite that ancient formula, "One law for the rich and another law for the poor." Before we part company with this Bill I take the opportunity of saying that I do not think that is a just judgment on the character of our administration. If he means that it is always very necessary to be watchful and to be helpful in the case of those who need help most and can least help themselves, to secure that they shall enjoy the rights of free citizenship, I agree with him.
Consider what is the true nature of the efforts which are being made. Go to a London police court and see if it is true that the magistrate sitting there thinks that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Go inside the Home Office and see if it is true in that Department, which spends its life in examining what ought to be done in the case of those who have been convicted and are still in prison, that the poor man is not looked after while the rich man is. The hon. Member in the next sentence contradicted his own proposition for he was glad to say that the middle class, and those who drive about in motor cars, are complaining that they cannot get an indulgent view of their claims before the Courts. That is for the very reason that it is not true in this country that there is a law for the rich and another for the poor.

Mr. MAXTON: One man gets three years, and another gets off, for the same offence.

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend sometimes exhibits his feelings in a very moving way. I know that he feels the hardship of the lot of many, and he has a deep and sincere sympathy with those who suffer. I beg him to believe that that is the spirit in which we try to administer the law. The hon. Member for Hendon (Sir R. Blair), who used to represent the constituency of the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley, said that he secured his election for some 10 years by the simple process of never being able to make any speech which his constituents could hear. Such a result was satisfactory, and I think he will be pleased that, in the Bill, there is the provision that a policeman is not required to act in a public meeting unless he is invited to do so.
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I thought rather established the case for the Bill. He explained, not for the first time, that when a Fascist procession was proceeding through the East End of London when there was so much trouble and anxiety, that the misfortune was that the police interfered, and that if only he and his friends had been left to handle the matter the procession would not have got any further. It is not for me to inquire by what process that result would have been attained, but I would refer the hon.


Member to that portion of the Bill which deals with those who seek to "usurp the functions of the police."
The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) asked me a question about Clause 5, more particularly in its application to women in the streets. His concern is that if we carry Clause 5, which increases the possible penalty, it might entail a severe application of the law as applied to that class of persons, and the hon. Member was a little disquieted about it. We have been in correspondence about the matter. The actual position is this. The usual course is that acts of solicitation are proceeded with under a Section of the Vagrancy Act which deals with behaving in a riotous or indecent manner, or under another provision, Section 54 of the Metropolitan Police Act, which deals with this class of case under the discription of loitering in a public place for the purpose of prostitution and solicitation to the annoyance of the inhabitants or passengers. My hon. Friend is quite right when he desires to know whether it would be likely, now that there is a heavier penalty provided in Clause 5, that there is any intention to bring this class of case under the new Clause. Of course, in so far as it comes under the new Section, what I am saying is not intended in the least to interpret the law, but I am very glad to assure the hon. Member that I agree with him in his general view as to the proper way in which to proceed. I propose to draw special attention to the point that if such proceedings as I have referred to have to be taken, they shall be taken under the old Section. I propose to call attention to that in any explanatory memorandum which may go to the police when the Bill becomes law.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That was only one of the two points. I also wanted an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that the new law in the same way would not be similarly strained in other cases as well as in those to which he referred.

Sir J. SIMON: As my hon. Friend will agree, that is a question of the interpretation and application of the law. I shall be very glad to have an opportunity of conferring with him on this

matter. I know he takes a very public-spirited interest in this point, but he will understand that I cannot possibly make a declaration, on the Third Reading of this Bill, on a point of interpretation of that sort.
I hope I have dealt, as far as the House will think necessary, with the speeches made on the Third Reading of the Bill. I am very glad we have come to the end. I ventured to tell the House, when I introduced the Bill, that I did not offer it to the House for its consideration as a major task of the Session; but I did present it to the House as a very necessary Measure which, I hope we should agree, ought to be disposed of fairly promptly, and a Measure which, after due consideration in Committee, ought to pass in defence of our democratic liberty.
It must be remembered that the essentials of this liberty are not only the rights of those who wish to demonstrate or protest, but also the rights of the general public, who have their interests in being protected from suffering from serious and illegitimate disturbance. It must be remembered that we are not passing legislation simply for the purpose of striking at one particular section, but trying to base our legislation on a general principle. That general principle is tolerance in British public life. We should give a reasonable amount of consideration to those who wish to express views other than our own; we should give a full measure of opportunity for those who wish to gather together and demonstrate to do what they wish to do; and we should live together as people who inherit this great tradition of liberty in this country and reject foreign methods as thoroughly in our legislation as we do in our hearts.
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the kind references he made to me in his speech. I would only say that I take them as being addressed to the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate as well as myself; and I hope I may be allowed to say that I have had, in carrying this Bill through, great help from the Under-Secretary, who, although he has been a silent witness on the bench, has played his full part in securing the cooperation with which the Bill has been received.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FREIGHT REBATES BILL

[Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Eleventh Schedule to 19 & 20 Geo. 5. c. 17, relating to freight rebates.)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, to leave out from the first "and," to the end of the Clause, and to add "forty-three."
As the Bill now stands, there is a provision in Clause 1 (5) by which the amendments of the Eleventh Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929, dealing with freight rebates on selected traffics, are to come to an end on 31st December, 1943, unless, by the good will of the Minister of Transport, they are extended beyond that period. I think I am correct in saying that the effect of the Subsection, which we propose to amend, is that the limitation of rebates proposed in the Bill can be extended beyond 1943 at the will of the Minister. If that be so, we have to consider the precise effect of the alterations which the Bill would make in the Eleventh Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1929. Under that Schedule agricultural traffic was a selected traffic, and farmers were given rebates on certain classes of produce. I understand that, under the Bill, those rebates are to be limited for the future to milk arid live stock and that the farmer who grows potatoes is not henceforth to receive the rebates on consignments of potatoes which he has hitherto enjoyed.
I have a difficulty in regard to this Amendment which I shall explain to the Committee. The farmers who grow potatoes are, as far as one can judge from the figures, making a misuse of the powers which they have in connection with the Potato Marketing Board. As far as Scotland is concerned—and I have taken out the figures in last year's agricultural report—the farmers there have succeeded, under the provisions of the

potato marketing scheme, in reducing the acreage under potatoes by something like 13 per cent. Partly as a result of that reduction of acreage they have also succeeded in causing an amazing jump in price. They have raised the price of potatoes from 69s. 8d. a ton to 111s. 6d. per ton or a jump of 60 per cent. I am told by some of my hon. Friends that there is grave fear that before this season is over, the price, through this restriction of production, may rise as high as £10 per ton. Whether that prophecy be sound or not, I do not know, but we have the records of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland showing that as a result of the restriction which the potato market has been able to impose upon potato growers, limiting the acreage, fining potato growers £5 for each extra acre upon which they grow potatoes, and restricting their products, they have been able to raise the price by no less than 60 per cent.
It may be true that the price of 69s. 8d. was not economical, and nobody wants the growers to raise crops at uneconomical prices, but what we are facing now is this, that we are handing over a monopoly in an essential foodstuff to a selected group of people, who can, at their own sweet will, jump the price against the buyer; and when this House gets a price jump of no less than 60 per cent. in an essential commodity, it is necessary that this House should look askance at any further benefit that the growers of that commodity may seek to get from this House. It may be that it is not the growers who are getting all these benefits. It may be that it is the merchants, who have now secured a firmer market, are getting away with the price jump, but when all is said and done, we have here in this Measure a limitation in railway rebates which the potato farmer has hitherto secured which are still to be continued to the milk farmer and the livestock farmer. I am torn between two desires. I want to see the potato farmer getting fair play. I know of no reason why he should be prejudiced against his brother who is raising milk or livestock, but I confess that I have very insecure ground for fighting his battle when I see him in a potato market ring which is jumping the price unconscionably against the poor people, and when I see the Government taking no steps whatever to


prevent what appears to be a price ramp against the poor. We seek an explanation from the Government before we permit this Clause to pass.
The second difficulty, I think, is this, that the farmers in Scotland are cornplaining that they were never consulted about the proposed change. It is alleged by the Government, or on behalf of the Government, that the English National Farmers' Union were consulted, but why was the Scottish Office so remiss as not to consult the Scottish farmers? Why did they permit the Government to consult the English farmers on this matter and not the farmers for whose business they are supposed to be primarily responsible? I think that there again we ought to have an explanation, but I am not convinced, and even on this point of consultation I have some difficulty in pressing the matter. These people, the Scottish farmers who are growing potatoes and complain so bitterly, about not being consulted by the Government, themselves strongly refuse to permit consultation with the Scottish farm workers who cannot get into consultation on wages, hours and conditions with them. While, therefore, we want to see the consumer and the actual producer on the land get a square deal, and we do not feel that they are getting it under this Measure, we must admit that the people who are making the most vociferous complaints do not come into court with their hands clean.
This seems rather inconclusive, but my right hon. Friend put the Amendment down to limit the operation of this limitation and discrimination in trade which is taking away the rebates from the potato farmer while it is still giving them to the milk and livestock farmer. My right hon. Friend put the Amendment down in order to take away the power from the Ministry of Transport to continue this discrimination after 1943 at his own sweet will. We cannot understand why the Minister of Transport should be given these powers. We could understand the Minister of Agriculture, or even the Minister of Health, being given them, but that the Minister of Transport should be given these powers is incomprehensible. Unless we get an adequate and satisfactory reply from the Government

my hon. Friends will consider the propriety of dividing the Committee.

Captain RAMSAY: On a point of Order. Will it be in order to wait for the Amendment in my name—in the Schedule, page 5, line 39, leave out from "to," to "shall," in line 41, and insert "Grains, brewers' or distillers' (or draff)" —before replying to the right hon. Gentleman.

The CHAIRMAN: I must leave it to the hon. Member. Both the Amendments deal with the same position, and no doubt what is in order on one is in order on the other. It may be that the Committee will not wish a long discussion on the second Amendment if there is a full discussion on the first.

11.43 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I would like, therefore, before dealing with my own Amendment to deal with two inconsistencies in the right hon. Gentleman's speech. As I understood him, he said that the policy of the Potato Board has, on the one hand, resulted in discouraging potato growing and, on the other hand, that they were holding the consumer up to ransom in order to make it too lucrative. These two statements are contradictory. The Board cannot be accused at one and the same time of having raised prices so high that producers are making exorbitant profits, and, at the same time be accused of driving people out of production. This could only be argued if some system of fines for reducing acreage were employed. This brings me to the second inaccuracy in the right hon. Gentleman's attack. He appears to believe that people are being driven out of production by the imposition of a fine of R.5 an acre. I am surprised that any one in his position should make wildly inaccurate statements. The fact is that £5 per acre represents one initial payment for land in excess of the basic acreage when the scheme began.

The CHAIRMAN: There must be some limit as to the extent to which we can go into the actions of the Potato Marketing Board. Anything which has reference to the effect on the cost of potatoes, which is the matter dealt with here, can be just referred to as another matter which may possibly affect the price, but the only thing with which we can deal at any length is the effect on the cost of the freight.

Captain RAMSAY: I only wanted before I went on to something else to clear up the misconception that the reduction in acreage of potatoes grown has anything to do with the so-called fine imposed, on the growers of potatoes. Nothing can be further from the truth. In fact, the opposite has been the case. The only effect of the so-called £5 fine would be to restrain over-production on the part of those who wished to grow more potatoes. The price factor alone accounts for less potato growing. The right hon. Gentleman's own figures show that so far from prices having been so high as he made out they had not been sufficiently remunerative for 13 per cent. of the acreage on which the initial payment had already been made to be left in production. The fact is that the Potato Marketing Board have endeavoured by the adjustment and the readjustment of the size of the riddle—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is going far too much beyond the bounds of order. The measures taken by the Potato Marketing Board have got nothing to do with the freight.

Captain RAMSAY: But they have a great deal to do with the price. However, I will not go further into that point, except to say that in our opinion the potato industry is not at the moment in a position to stand further burdens. I have endeavoured to show that these prices are the best that can be obtained in the circumstances, and with the most careful management possible, and it is a matter for regret that the potato industry, especially in Scotland, should be subjected to the unforeseen penalties which this Bill will inflict on it. The result of researches into the value of the potato in case of emergency which will shortly be published, will show the immense importance of the potato industry, and I and those associated with the Amendment in my name hope the Minister may see his way to qualify this new burden. In view of the fact that Scotland has not benefited to the same degree as England from the agricultural measures of the Government, and as Scotland looks to potatoes to balance in large measure her agricultural budget, and as, further, the Scottish Farmers' Union has not agreed to the imposition of this burden, we hope that the Minister will recon-

sider his decision and make some qualification in it.

11.50 p.m.

Sir MALCOLM BARCLAY-HARVEY: As the Debate is taking place on this Amendment I think perhaps I had better make now the few remarks which I propose to address to the Committee, rather than wait for the second Amendment which stands in my hon. and gallant Friend's name and in my own. Both Amendments deal with the same point.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has suggested that the discussion on the two Amendments should be taken together; I am quite willing for that to be done. In the circumstances, it will, of course, have to be understood that there can be no discussion on the second Amendment, which must merely be formally moved. This course will require the assent of the Committee.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

Sir M. BARCLAY-HARVEY: That being agreeable to the Committee I shall not, at this late hour, make a long speech, but l would point out that our interests in this matter have been neglected and overlooked. The potato industry is very important, but the railway freight rates which are charged to us are particularly heavy in Scotland. A large portion of our trade is in seed potatoes, which are sent from far North in Scotland to England, a very long and expensive haulage. The question whether we are to have a rebate for our potatoes is much more important north of the Border than in England. The whole potato traffic is important. I understand that it is not easy to give figures, because potatoes are lumped together with other things in the returns, but pr.obably the value is about £1,200,000 a year. In that case, it comes above the value of the milk traffic, is by no means negligible and deserves considerable attention.
During the Debate on the Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary upheld his decision on the ground that the National Farmers' Union were carrying out the recommendation on the majority. It is a democratic principle that we should go by majority rule; I ask


the Parliamentary Secretary to consider where that principle leads us. There are three bodies interested in English potatoes—the National Farmers' Union, the Potato Marketing Board and The National Farmers' Union for Scotland. Two of those three bodies, which I believe constitute a majority, the National Farmers' Union for Scotland and the Potato Marketing Board, are against the Minister. The National Farmers' Union for Scotland have protested, but apparently their protest has not been considered. We feel that our interests have not received the consideration that they should have had, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some satisfaction in his reply.

11.53 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): I was in some difficulty when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) was speaking because I did not know what question he wanted to raise. The effect of the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) is that the concentration of these reliefs should cease in 1943, that is, in seven years, and should not be extended without legislation. The proposal in the Bill is that the concentration should not extend beyond seven years, unless the Minister continues it by order up to 16 years. We might, therefore, say that we want the same thing, namely that a review should take place at the end of seven years. It is necessary that it should take place at that time, because we cannot foresee with any degree of accuracy what the assessment of the railway companies for rating will he when the quinquennium, 1936–41 expires. We thought that the Minister should have power to extend to the full 16 years without legislation, because 16 years is the fieriod of the proposed loan. If there is no change in the assessment in that quinquennium the concentration will have to go on, and we see no necessity for the House to be put to the trouble of passing another Bill.
Coming to the point regarding potatoes, in view of the reduced sum available it was hard to decide what to do with it. We wanted to utilize it as far as we could in the best interests of agriculture,

and to do the greatest good for the greatest number. We consulted the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture and the Highland Agricultural Society. We did not get the agreement among them that we had hoped. The two last named were in favour of continuing the spread of the rebates over all agricultural commodities and the National Farmers' Union were in favour of spreading it over potatoes, milk and livestock. The Government, having consulted that body, and the National Farmers' Union in England, decided that the best thing to do was to take the two commodities, milk and livestock. The potato market in Scotland as in England is now doing well. Before the alteration of the rates agriculture got 15 per cent. of the carriage chargeable. This has come down to 13 per cent. on the reduced number of commodities. If potatoes were included it would come down to nine per cent., and on the whole it is far better that we should concentrate on the two commodities and give 13 per cent. We also want to make certain that this relief goes to the producer and not to the middleman. I am informed it is comparatively easy to do so in the case of milk and livestock, but not so easy in the case of potatoes. This reduction is a regrettable necessity and 1 will only ask the Committee to reject these two Amendments and make it as workable as possible.

11.59 p.m.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Before this decision is taken it should be pointed out that the Minister said he was wishful to do the greatest good to the greatest number, but in this case we are certainly not taking care of the greatest number. The resolution passed by the National Farmers' Union in England was passed by a narrow majority. I think it would be very unfortunate if the House were to pass this Measure to-night giving to one branch of agriculture the whole of what remains of this benefit, and taking away from the arable land of the country the whole of the rebate which it has previously enjoyed. I think this matter should be carefully looked into by the Government before the Measure is passed. When it is realised that farmers producing milk and fattening bullocks are paying 15 per cent. less than those who are growing wheat and other cereals or potatoes, it will be considered by the agri-


cultural community that a great injustice is being done to those who are farming arable land. I think that the Minister should give this matter more careful consideration before report, and I hope that an alteration will be made.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Claues."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 162; Noes 62.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[12.2 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fleming, E. L.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Furness, S. N.
Penny, Sir G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Petherick, M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gledhill, G.
Pickthorn. K. W. M.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Procter, Major H. A.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Guy, J. C. M.
Rankin, R.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Harbord, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Hepworth, J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Blair, Sir R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Blindell, Sir J.
Holmes, J. S.
Remer, J. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hopkinson, A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Salt, E. W.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Bull. B. B.
Hunter, T.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Butler, R. A.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Scott, Lord William


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merloneth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cary, R. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kimball. L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Christie, J. A.
Latham, Sir P.
Spens, W. P.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Leckie, J. A.
Storey, S.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooper. Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Critchley, A.
Loftus, P. C.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Crooke. J. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Turton. R. H.


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Wakefield, W. W.


Crossley, A. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Crowder, J. F. E.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dodd, J. S.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Donner, P. W.
Magnay, T.
Wells, S. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Duggan, H J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eastwood, J. F.
Maxwell, S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emery, J. F.
Moreing, A. C.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Errington, E
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-Jones.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M.
Gibbons, J.
John, W.


Alesander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.


Barr, J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Kelly, W. T.


Bellenger, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Kirby, B. V.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Daggar, G.
Griffith, J. (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Dalton, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Marshall, F.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Milner, Major J.


Ede, J. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Paling, W.


Foot, D. M.
Hollins, A.
Parker, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.




Potts, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Welsh, J. C.


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Westwood, J.


Pritt, D. N.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Seely, Sir H. M.
Tinker, J. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sexton, T. M.
Watson, W. McL.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Whiteley.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of Eleventh Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929.)

Amendment proposed: In page 5, line 39, to leave out from "to," to "shall," in line 41, and to insert:

"Grains, brewers' or distillers' (or draff)."—[Mr. Alexander.]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 60.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[12.12 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Penny, Sir G.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Albery, Sir Irving
Furness, S. N.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Gledhill, G.
Raikes, H. V. A M.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Ramsbotham, H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rankin, R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Balniel, Lord
Harbord, A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beauchamo, Sir B. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Remer, J. R.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Holmes. J. S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Blair, Slr R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Blindell, Sir J.
Hopkinson, A.
Rowlands, G.


Bossom, A. C.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Salt, E. W.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Scott, Lord William


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Bull, B. B.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Butler, R. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kimball, L.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Cary, R. A.
Latham, Sir P.
Spens, W. P.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Storey, S.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Leckie, J. A.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Christle, J. A.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Colville, Lt-.Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lyons, A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Critchley, A.
Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Wakefield, W. W.


Crooke, J. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Cross, R. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Ward. Irene (Wallsend)


Crossley, A. C.
McKie, J. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Magnay, T.
Wells, S. R.


Dodd, J. S.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Maxwell, S. A.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Eckersley, P. T.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wragg, H.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'str)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Errington, E.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.



Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.





NOES.


Adamson, W. M.
Barr, J.
Daggar, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Cocks, F. S.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)




Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. [...]
Silverman, S. S.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


foot, D. M.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Gibbins. J.
Marshall, F.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Milner, Major J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Parker, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, J. C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.
Westwood, J.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Harris, Sir P. A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Kelly, W. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ACT, 1935.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th November],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 53 of the Government of India. Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue instructions to the Governors of Governors' Provinces in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 53 of the Government of India Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue Instructions to the Governors of Governors' Provinces in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF BURMA ACT, 1935.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th November],
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue Instructions to the Governor of Burma in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 9 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that His Majesty may be pleased to issue Instructions to the Governor of Burma in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to make provision—

(a) for the extension until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, of the period in respect of which grants are to be paid to local authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament under section one of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935;
(b) for the making of adjustments in the instalments of those grants payable to the several local authorities in respect of the period beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, but so that the aggregate amount of the grants payable under the said section one be not affected;
(c) for the repeal of sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of section forty-five of the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; and
(d) for purposes incidental to the matters aforesaid."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Sir K. Wood.]

12.20 a.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I desire to say just a few words on this matter, with which hon. Members will be familiar. The first part of the Resolution provides for the extension until 31st March, 1937, of the period in respect of which grants are paid to local authorities under Section 1 of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Act. Hon. Members will be aware that this is the Second Appointed Day, and therefore it is only necessary to continue the payments of


grants over that particular period. From that date the Unemployment Assistance Board will become responsible for the persons in respect of whose relief these grants are being paid, and the necessity for the grants will cease. For this further period, from 1st April, 1936, to 31st March, 1937, grants will be continued on the same basis as before. I need add only one further word about paragraph (b), which provides for making adjustments. The basis which is provided is by no means unsatisfactory to the great majority of local authorities, who have been more than compensated by such grants. In fact, the great majority of the councils in question, in respect of the period from 1st April, 1935, to 31st March, 1936, are some £600,000 better off than they would have been if grants had been based on their actual expenditure during that period, and estimates made for the later period show that the net surplus from 1st April, 1936, to 30th September, 1936, will have been even more.
It is right that the Committee should know that there have been a few losers, and at 30th September, 1936, some eight councils had lost about £47,000 and were therefore insufficiently compensated by the grant. Therefore, I am proposing, after consultation with the local authorities, to meet these hard cases, and the modification proposed in paragraph (b) will empower the Minister of Health, after consultation with the Associations of Local Authorities, to make an increase in the grant in such cases. The additional amounts will be provided by a reduction in the grants to those authorities whose expenditure resulting from the postponement is estimated to have been less than the grant they would have received on the prescribed basis.
The deficiencies will be very few in number and relatively small in amount. The Associations of Local Authorities have agreed to this principle of deduction, and the exact method will be determined after consultation with them, and will probably be provided on a proportionate

basis. Finally, I would like to say that it is estimated that the grants for the year ending 31st March, 1937, will amount to £3,990,000 in England and £1,620,000 in Scotland. I hope the Committee will feel that this is a reasonable settlement of a difficult matter. As far as the local authorities are concerned, I am glad to say that they have met me in this matter. As the Committee will see, the great majority of them have considerably benefited as a result of the arrangement made some little time ago, and we are taking a. step to meet the needs and necessities of the few authorities who are losers under that arrangement.

Resolved,
That it is expedient to make provision—

(a) for the extension until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, of the period in respect of which grants are to be paid to local authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament under Section one of the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1935;
(b) for the making of adjustments in the instalment of those grants payable to the several local authorities in respect of the period beginning with the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, and ending with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, but so that the aggregate amount of the grants payable under the said Section one be not affected;
(c) for the repeal of Sub-sections (2), (3), and (4) of Section forty-five o fthe Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934; and
(d) for purposes incidental to the matters aforesaid."

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Twelve o' Clock.